DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-30, Applicant Argues that Da Silva fails to disclose the newly added limitations mainly from dependent claim 11 (See Applicant’s Arguments and Remarks, pages 13-14_. Examiner agrees. However, Applicant has not addresses the art of Leng which was previously used to reject similar limitations. Therefore, the rejection stands based on the teachings of Leng, as discussed, infra.
Regarding claim 31, Applicant argues the new claim is allowable for at least the reasons stated with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, examiner disagrees for the reasons stated with respect to claim 1, supra.
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(s) 1, 10, 12, 20, 21, 26, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2025/0365594; Note also Provisional 63/352,278 [“278”] with parallel citations) in view of Leng, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0130286 A1; note also 63/272,541 [“541”], with parallel citations).
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Da Silva discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (paragraph 0257; note also 28, page 46) and a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
Receive/receiving a configuration of a set of cells that support at least one of layer 1 (L1) signaling mobility or layer 2 (L2) signaling mobility, wherein each cell, of the set of cells, is associated with a special cell (SpCell) configuration (The system of Da Silva discloses that a UE may receive a cell group configuration per candidate with the cell group and group member cell being associated with a SpCell configuration and supporting L1/L2 mobility [paragraph 0089]. Multiple of such SpCell configurations and associated per candidate/SpCell configuration groups may be configured, forming “configuration of the set of cells” [paragraph 0089; note also 278, page 12, lines 19-27]. The “configuration of the set of cells” comprising the set of SpCell configurations each with a corresponding cell group may be signaled to the UE using RRC as a single composite RRC message containing a RRC configuration message for each SpCell configuration/cell group [paragraphs 099-0101; note also 278, pages 13-14].)
receive/receiving, via L2 signaling, an indication of a cell, of the set of cells, to serve as an SpCell (UE performs L1/L2 inter cell mobility including handing over the current PCell/SpCell (note that SpCell and PCell are used interchangeably throughout the reference) to a new Pcell/SpCell within the SpCell set/configuraiton of the set of cells [paragraphs 0076-0079, 0066; note also 0088- the SpCell configuration for the new SpCell/Pcell]). The mobility is based on L1/L2 signaling indicating the change of the PCell/SpCell from the source to the target PCell/SpCell [paragraphs 0066, 0201; note also 278, pages 8 and 32].)
activate/activating the cell as the SpCell based at least in part on the one of the the L2 signaling and a corresponding SpCell configuration associated with the cell (see (b), supra, paragraphs 0066, 0201; note also 278, pages 8 and 32).
Da Silva fails to disclose the L2 signaling could comprise a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) communication wherein the MAC-CE communication includes an indication of a transmission configuration indicator state associated with the cell wherein the activation is based at least in part on the MAC-CE communication. In the same field of endeavor, Leng discloses the L2 signaling could comprise a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) communication wherein the MAC-CE communication includes an indication of a transmission configuration indicator state associated with the cell wherein the activation is based at least in part on the MAC-CE communication (paragraph 0110- MAC CE used for handover includes LEID and target cell ID and TCI State associated with the cell; note also 62272541, page 22).
Therefore, since Leng discloses a mac CE including LEID, target Cell ID and TCI state, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the MAC-CE including LEID, target CellID and TCI state of Leng with the L2 indicator of cell change of Da Silvia by including the LEID, Cell ID and TCI state of the target cell in the L2/MAC layer indicator. The motive to combine is to give the UE additional information including the target cell to allow the UE to select the correct target for improved performance.
Regarding claim 10, Da Silva as modified by Leng to discloses the MAC-CE includes one of a logical channel identity indicating a cell identifier associated with the cell (see combination in the independent claim, supra)).
Regarding claim 12, Da Silva as modified by Leng discloses the MAC-CE communication includes a cell identifier field indicating an index of the cell, and an additional information field indicating a transmission configuration indicator state associated with the cell (see the parent claim, supra.)
Regarding claims 20 and 29, Da Silva discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising: one or more memories and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured (paragraph 0273; note also 278, page 51) to and a method of wireless communication performed by network node, comprising:
transmitting/transmit a configuration of a set of cells that support at least one of layer 1 signaling mobility or layer 2 (L2) signaling mobility, wherein each cell, of the set of cells, is associated with a special cell (SpCell) configuration (The system of Da Silva discloses that a UE may receive, transmitted from a base station/network node, a cell group configuration per candidate with the cell group and group member cell being associated with a SpCell configuration and supporting L1/L2 mobility [paragraph 0089]. Multiple of such SpCell configurations and associated per candidate/SpCell configuration groups may be configured, forming “configuration of the set of cells” [paragraph 0089; note also 278, page 12, lines 19-27]. The “configuration of the set of cells” comprising the set of SpCell configurations each with a corresponding cell group may be signaled to the UE using RRC as a single composite RRC message containing a RRC configuration message for each SpCell configuration/cell group [paragraphs 099-0101; note also 278, pages 13-14].)
transmit/transmitting, via L2 signaling, an indication of a cell, of the set of cells, to serve as an SpCell (UE performs L1/L2 inter cell mobility including handing over the current PCell/SpCell (note that SpCell and PCell are used interchangeably throughout the reference) to a new Pcell/SpCell within the SpCell set/configuraiton of the set of cells [paragraphs 0076-0079, 0066; note also 0088- the SpCell configuration for the new SpCell/Pcell]). The mobility is based on L1/L2 signaling transmitted by the base station/network node to the UE indicating the change of the PCell/SpCell from the source to the target PCell/SpCell [paragraphs 0066, 0201; note also 278, pages 8 and 32].)
Da Silva fails to disclose the L2 signaling could comprise a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) communication wherein the MAC-CE communication includes an indication of a transmission configuration indicator state associated with the cell wherein the activation is based at least in part on the MAC-CE communication. In the same field of endeavor, Leng discloses the L2 signaling could comprise a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) communication wherein the MAC-CE communication includes an indication of a transmission configuration indicator state associated with the cell wherein the activation is based at least in part on the MAC-CE communication (paragraph 0110- MAC CE used for handover includes LEID and target cell ID and TCI State associated with the cell; note also 62272541, page 22).
Therefore, since Leng discloses a mac CE including LEID, target Cell ID and TCI state, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the MAC-CE including LEID, target CellID and TCI state of Leng with the L2 indicator of cell change of Da Silvia by including the LEID, Cell ID and TCI state of the target cell in the L2/MAC layer indicator. The motive to combine is to give the UE additional information including the target cell to allow the UE to select the correct target for improved performance.
Regarding claim 21, Da Silva as modified by Ling discloses the MAC-CE communication includes a cell identifier field indicating an index of the cell and an additional information field a transmission configuration indicator state associated with the cell (see combination in the independent claim, supra)).
Regarding claim 30, Da Silva as modified by Ling discloses the MAC-CE communication includes a cell identifier field indicating an index of the cell and an additional information field a transmission configuration indicator state associated with the cell (see combination in the independent claim, supra)).
Regarding claim 31, Da Silva discloses the configuration of the set of cells is received via radio resource control signaling (The “configuration of the set of cells” comprising the set of SpCell configurations each with a corresponding cell group may be signaled to the UE using RRC as a single composite RRC message containing a RRC configuration message for each SpCell configuration/cell group [paragraphs 099-0101; note also 278, pages 13-14; note also paragraph 0068 – “ The text herein refers to configuration(s) generated by the DU, encapsulated in an RRC Reconfiguration message, that the UE receives w…The configuration(s) comprise one or more of:… [includes the per-cell configurations of candidate cells in paragraph 0089]; note also 278, page 9.)
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2025/0365594; Note also Provisional 63/352,278 [“278”] with parallel citations) and Leng, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0130286 A1; note also 63272541, with parallel citations) as applied to claims 1, 20, 26 and 29 and further in view of R2-2105354 (“354”) (Author Unknown, L1/L2 Mobility Overview, Doc. No. R2-2105354, pages 1-4, 27 May 2021)
Regarding claims 2 and 27, Da Silva as modified by Leng fails to disclose the set of cells includes a mobility activated subset of cells and a mobility deactivated subset of cells, and wherein the cell is associated with the mobility activated subset of cells. In the same field of endeavor, 354 discloses the set of cells includes a mobility activated subset of cells and a mobility deactivated subset of cells, and wherein the cell is associated with the mobility activated subset of cells. (354 discloses that in L1/L2 mobility the set of mobility configured cells may be separated into two subsets, one consisting of the activated cell set and the other consisting of the deactivated cell set [pages 2-3, scheme 2, in particular the first and second dot bullets of page 2]. The activated subset may be used in L1/L2 mobility and the deactivated set may only be handed over using L3 mobility [pages 2-3, scheme 2, in particular the first three dot bulles of scheme 2 on pages 2-3].)
Therefore, since 354 discloses a mobility activated and mobility deactivated subset of cells, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the activated and deactivated sets of 354 with the system of Da Silva as modified by Leng by turning the set of cells into subsets of mobility activated and mobility deactivated sets of cells and performing L1/L2 mobility for cells in the subset of mobility activated cells and L3 mobility for handovers to cells such that the cell/PCell/SpCell that is the target of the handover is a mobility activated cell. The motive to combine is to allow the UE to differentiate between cells that can and cannot be used for L1/L2 mobility, which may vary based on location and PCell/SpCell association to allow for L1/L2 mobility whenever possible.
Regarding claim 3, Da Silva as previously modified by Ling and 354 fails to disclose the one or more processors are further configured to receive, via the one of the L1 signaling or the L2 signaling, an indication that another cell associated with the mobility deactivated subset of cells should be added to the mobility activated subset of cells. In the same field of endeavor, another portion of 354 discloses the one or more processors are further configured to receive, via the one of the L1 signaling or the L2 signaling, an indication that another cell associated with the mobility deactivated subset of cells should be added to the mobility activated subset of cells. (354 discloses that as the UE moves, the activated set of cells may be changed using L1/L2 signaling by moving cells to/from the deactivated and activated sets based on UE location/signal strength/metrics [page 3, “Management of the Activated Set, in particular the first paragraph].
Therefore, since 354 further discloses managing the active set using L1/L2 signaling, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the activation/deactivation of 354 with the system of Da Silva as previously modified by Ling and 354 by further allowing the activated/deactivated subsets to be changed by moving a PCell/SpCell between the activated and deactivated sets as needed based on location using L1/L2 signaling. The motive to combine is to allow updating of the activated set to include PCell/SpCells with good signal quality to improve performance.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2025/0365594; Note also Provisional 63/352,278 [“278”] with parallel citations) Leng, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0130286 A1; note also 63272541, with parallel citations) and R2-2105354 (“354”) (Author Unknown, L1/L2 Mobility Overview, pages 1-4, 27 May 2021) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Da Silva II, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0276585 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Da Silva discloses the one or more processors are further configured to deactivate another cell, of the set of cells, as the SpCell based at least in part on activating the cell as the SpCell (As discussed in the independent claim, supra, the source/another cell is deactivated as the SpCell/PCell when the transition to the target SpCell/”the SpCell” is complete.)
Da Silva as modified by Leng and 354 fails to disclose the other cell becomes associated with the mobility activated subset of cells based at least in part on deactivating the other cell as the SpCell. In the same filed of endeavor, Da Silva II discloses the other cell becomes associated with the mobility activated subset of cells based at least in part on deactivating the other cell as the SpCell. (Da Silva II discloses that when a UE transitions to another PCell/SpCell, the UE may adjust the measurement configuration based on TCI state to match the CSI-RS/SSB measurement for the target PCell/SpCell, therefore, if the target PCell/SpCell has the former SpCell/PCell/another cell as a measurement target, then the UE will measure the former SpCell/PCell/another cell and other cells that are not a part of the target cell measurements will no o longer be measured [paragraphs 0073-0075].)
Therefore, since Da Silva II discloses switching the measurement configuration to match the CSI-RS/SSB measurement for the target PCell/SpCell, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the measurement switching of Da Silva II with the system of Da Silva as modified by Leng and 354 by switching the activated subset of cells to match the cells used for measurement in the target PCell/SpCell based on TCI state, which, in the case of a target PCell/SpCell that has the former SpCell/PCell/another cell as a measurement target due to close proximity, will result in moving the former SpCell/PCell/another cell to the activated subset of cells based on the deactivation of the former SpCell/PCell/another cell at the time of the inter-cell mobility in the case of a cell that is not on the target PCell/SpCell list but was on the list of the former SpCell/PCell/another cell, that cell will be deactivated. The motive to combine is to allow updating of monitored cells based on the new location of the UE when connecting with the target PCell/SpCell to allow monitoring of a more relevant cell list.
Regarding claim 5, Da Silva as modified by Leng, 354 and De Silva II discloses the one or more processors are further configured to deactivate another cell, of the set of cells, as the SpCell based at least in part on activating the cell as the SpCell, wherein the other cell becomes associated with the mobility deactivated subset of cells based at least in part on deactivating the other cell as the SpCell (see claim 4, supra).
Regarding claim 6, Da Silva as modified by Leng, 354 and De Silva II discloses the one or more processors are further configured to receive, via the one of the L1 signaling or the L2 signaling, an indication that the other cell should become associated with the mobility deactivated subset of cells. (Looking to claim 5 it is shown that the other cell is deactivated as a part of the cell switching. The cell switching occurs based on L1/L2 signaling (see claim 1(b), supra) and therefore indicates, at least indirectly, the other cell should become associated with the mobility deactivated subset.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 13-19, 22-25 and 28 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 28, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the one or more processors are further configured to perform, for at least one cell associated with the mobility deactivated subset of cells, L1 measurement and reporting. That is, no art teaching this limitation could be located. Furthermore, this limitation makes little sense in view of 354, which teaches that the mobility deactivated subset of cells are not monitored and cannot be handover targets, making modifying the system of Dasilva as modified by 354 to monitor the mobility deactivated subset a combination that would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 7 and are allowable for at least the reasons stated with respect to claim 7, surpa.
Regarding claim 13 and 22, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the one of the L1 signaling or the L2 signaling is associated with the MAC-CE communication, and wherein the MAC-CE communication indicates one or more L1 measurement and reporting configurations associated with one or more deactivated cells, of the set of cells. That is, the closest prior art of Da Silva II discloses that a particular measurement configuration is associated with each SpCell such that upon switching the measurement configuration of the new SpCell is used. This does not teach indicating a measurement and reporting configuration associated with one or more deactivated cells in the L1/L2 signaling for cell switching, nor is it clear why this information would be included in the MAC-CE, given it is not relevant to the new target cell. Furthermore, no other art teaching this limitation in the context of L1/L2 inter cell mobility could be located. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 14-19 and 23-25, the claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 13 and 22 and are allowable for at least the reasons stated with respect to claims 13 and 22, surpa.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights