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 Amendments and Arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification and Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 04/21/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification and Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the double patenting rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 04/21/2026in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot. Although Applicant requested that the double patenting rejection be in abeyance pending a final disposition of the claims, the double patenting rejections have not been withdrawn and will be maintained until a terminal disclaimer is filed or amendments are made so that the claims can be patentably distinct from the reference claim(s).
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 04/21/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive at least in view of reasons set forth below.
On pages 9-10 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Applicant respectfully submits that Hwang does not disclose the claimed "mobility configuration." The Office Action equates Hwang's "measurement configuration information" (operation 15-05) with the claimed mobility configuration. However, Hwang's measurement configuration merely configures measurement and reporting behavior of the UE and does not configure mobility behavior. [ ]
In Hwang, the UE receives measurement configuration information and performs measurements and reporting (operations 15-05 and 15-10), while the decision to perform a PS Cell change is made by the secondary node ( operation 15-15), and the change is executed via higher-layer signaling (e.g., RRC reconfiguration and random access). In contrast, the claimed mobility configuration is "for lower layer mobility" and is used by the UE to trigger a change of PCI upon reception of lower-layer signaling. Thus, the claimed mobility configuration defines and enables UE-side mobility behavior, including PCI switching based on lower-layer signaling. Hwang's measurement configuration does not configure such mobility behavior, does not associate multiple PCIs with a cell, and does not enable lower-layer-triggered PCI changes. Accordingly, Hwang fails to disclose the claimed mobility configuration.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claim recites “a first mobility configuration for lower layer mobility.” The claim
does not require that the configuration be named as a “mobility configuration.” Rather, the claim requires only that the configuration be used for mobility. In Hwang, the measurement configuration establishes the conditions and thresholds under which a PSCell change is triggered. The UE operates according to this configuration throughout the MR-DC operation. Thus, Hwang’s measurement configuration functionally serves as the claimed mobility configuration, regardless of its name.
Second, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), “mobility configuration” encompasses any configuration that governs the UE’s cell-change behavior. Hwang’s measurement configuration directly governs when and how the UE reports conditions that lead to a PSCell change.
Third, regarding Applicant’s argument that Hwang executes the cell change via higher-layer signaling (RRC), whereas the claimed requires lower-layer signaling, the examiner notes that Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. The claim does not preclude the involvement of higher-layer signaling in executing the change. Hwang’s conditional PSCell procedure involves L1/L2 measurement triggers that initiate the process, which satisfies the lower-layer signaling reception requirement of the claim.
Even considering Applicant’s argument “Hwang's measurement configuration does not configure such mobility behavior, does not associate multiple PCIs with a cell, and does not enable lower-layer-triggered PCI changes. Accordingly, Hwang fails to disclose the claimed mobility configuration”, the Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In order to establish prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, Zhou’232 is applied to cure the alleged deficiencies of Hwang for “lower layer mobility associated to multiple physical cell identities, PCIs for a cell” and “wherein the lower layer mobility is used to trigger a change of PCI upon reception of a lower layer signaling by the UE”, as stated in page 10 of the Office Action dated 01/26/2026.
On pages 10-11 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Furthermore, even if Hwang's measurement configuration were considered a "mobility configuration," Hwang still fails to disclose or suggest several features of claim 1. In particular, Hwang does not disclose a configuration associated with multiple physical cell identities (PCIs) for a cell of an SCG, nor does Hwang disclose or suggest lower-layer mobility in which a change of PCI is triggered upon reception of lower-layer signaling. Rather, Hwang relies on higher-layer (RRC-based) procedures in which mobility decisions are made by the network and executed via reconfiguration signaling. The additional reliance on Zhou does not remedy these deficiencies, as Zhou does not disclose the claimed features in the context of an SCG in MR-DC or in combination with Hwang's procedures, nor does it provide any teaching or suggestion to modify Hwang's higher-layer, network-controlled mobility mechanism to a lower-layer, PCI switching scheme.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Similarly to what was discussed above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In order to establish prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, Zhou’232 is applied to cure the alleged deficiencies of Hwang for “lower layer mobility associated to multiple physical cell identities, PCIs for a cell” and “wherein the lower layer mobility is used to trigger a change of PCI upon reception of a lower layer signaling by the UE”, as stated in page 10 of the Office Action dated 01/26/2026.
Regarding the combination of Hwang and Zhou’232, the Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and in many cases will be able to fit teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressively suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
On page 11 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
The remaining dependent claims are patentable at least per the patentability of the independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-15 should be withdrawn..
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since claim 1 is unpatentable over the cited references of record as set forth above, patentability of other dependent claims should be determined based on the claimed limitations recited thereon, rather than their respective independent claims. The dependent claims are also unpatentable in view of the corresponding cited references of records as set forth below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 7, 12 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 12484091 B2 (hereinafter “Rama’091) in view of Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rama’091 discloses, a method of operating user equipment, UE, comprising:
receiving a first mobility configuration for lower layer mobility associated to multiple physical cell identities, PCIs for a cell, of a Secondary Cell Group, SCG, for operating in multi-radio access technology dual connectivity, MR-DC [see claim 1, lines 49-55], wherein the lower layer mobility is used to trigger a change of PCI upon reception of a lower layer signaling by the UE [see claim 1, lines 56-57]; and
operating according to the mobility configuration for the cell of the SCG while operating in MR-DC [see claim 1, lines 59-60].
Rama’091 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), receiving a first mobility configuration for lower layer mobility associated to multiple physical cell identities, PCIs for a cell, of a Secondary Cell Group, SCG, for operating in multi-radio access technology dual connectivity, MR-DC, and operating according to the mobility configuration for the cell of the SCG while operating in MR-DC.
However, Hwang discloses, receiving a first mobility configuration for . . . mobility . . . for a cell, of a Secondary Cell Group, SCG [FIG. 15; its related descriptions; ¶0224, the terminal receives measurement configuration information from secondary node (operation 15-05); further see ¶0225, the terminal transmits measurement report to the secondary node (operation 15-10) and the secondary node determines to a conditional PSCell change (operation 15-15); note that the measurement configuration information in the operation 1505 is considered as the claimed first mobility configuration], for operating in multi-radio access technology dual connectivity, MR-DC [¶0224, for operating in dual connection with a MN and a SN and ¶0152, multi-RAT dual connectivity (MRDC)]; and operating according to the mobility configuration for the cell of the SCG while operating in MR-DC [FIG. 15; its related descriptions; ¶0224-0225, perform measurement reporting for the secondary node (SN) (operation 15-10) according to the measurement configuration information while operating in the MR-DC (further see, ¶0224 and 0152)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Rama’091 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Hwang to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Hwang into the system of Rama’091 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring to reduce handover latency and signaling overhead while maintaining robust connectivity in a wireless network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Rama’091 in view of Hwang discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Rama’091 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hwang discloses, wherein the cell comprises a special cell, Spcell, of the SCG [¶0225, the SN determines to a conditional PSCell change, and selects, as a target, another cell in an SN secondary gNB (SgNB) previously received from the terminal (operation 15-15)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Hwang in the system of Rama’091 for similar rationales set forth above in clam 1.
Regarding claim 3, Rama’091 in view of Hwang discloses, the method of Claim 2 as set forth above.
Rama’091 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hwang discloses, wherein the special cell comprises a primary SCG cell, PSCell, of the SCG [¶0225, the SN determines to a conditional PSCell change, and selects, as a target, another cell in an SN secondary gNB (SgNB) previously received from the terminal (operation 15-15)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Hwang in the system of Rama’091 for similar rationales set forth above in clam 1.
Regarding claim 7, Rama’091 in view of Hwang discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Rama’091 discloses, wherein the lower layer signaling comprises a medium access control, MAC, control element [see claim 4] that indicates a change of a primary SCG cell, PSCell, of the SCG and/or that indicates a PCI change for the PSCell [see claim 2].
Regarding claim 12, Rama’091 in view of Hwang discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Rama’091 discloses, receiving a contention free random access, CFRA, configuration associated to a plurality of beams [see claim 7], wherein each beam is associated to a different PCI [see claim 8], wherein the CFRA configuration is received with the first mobility configuration [see claim 7]; and performing a random access procedure based on the CFRA configuration [see claim 9].
Regarding claim 14, Rama’091 in view of Hwang discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Rama’091 discloses, receiving a contention based random access, CBRA, configuration associated to a plurality of beams [see claim 15], wherein the CBRA configuration is received with the first mobility configuration [see claim 15]; and performing a random access procedure based on the CBRA configuration [see claim 17].
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1) in view of Zhou’232 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345232 A1)1.
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses, a method of operating user equipment, UE [FIG. 15; its related descriptions; ¶0224, terminal/UE], comprising:
receiving a first mobility configuration for . . . mobility . . . for a cell, of a Secondary Cell Group, SCG [FIG. 15; its related descriptions; ¶0224, the terminal receives measurement configuration information (i.e., mobility configuration) from secondary node (operation 15-05); further see ¶0225, the terminal transmits measurement report to the secondary node (operation 15-10) and the secondary node determines to a conditional PSCell change (operation 15-15); note that the claim requires only that the configuration be used for mobility. In Hwang, the measurement configuration establishes the conditions and thresholds under which a PSCell change is triggered. The UE operates according to this configuration throughout the MR-DC operation. Thus, Hwang’s measurement configuration functionally serves as the claimed mobility configuration], for operating in multi-radio access technology dual connectivity, MR-DC [¶0224, for operating in dual connection with a MN and a SN and ¶0152, multi-RAT dual connectivity (MRDC)]; and
operating according to the mobility configuration for the cell of the SCG while operating in MR-DC [FIG. 15; its related descriptions; ¶0224-0225, perform measurement reporting for the secondary node (SN) (operation 15-10) according to the measurement configuration information while operating in the MR-DC (further see, ¶0224 and 0152)].
Although Hwang discloses, “receiving a first mobility configuration for . . . mobility . . . for a cell, of a Secondary Cell Group, SCG, for operating in multi-radio access technology dual connectivity, MR-DC” as set forth above, Hwang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), “a first mobility configuration for lower layer mobility associated to multiple physical cell identities, PCIs for a cell” and “wherein the lower layer mobility is used to trigger a change of PCI upon reception of a lower layer signaling by the UE”.
However, Zhou’232 discloses, a first mobility configuration [¶0059, PCI configurations 215 associated with candidate PCIs] see also, e.g., ¶0096 of US Provisional App. No. 63/018,408) for lower layer mobility associated to multiple physical cell identities, PCIs for a cell [¶0055, L1 and L2-based inter-cell mobility associated with multiple PCI (see “a serving cell (e.g., each serving cell) may have multiple TRPs 210. In some cases, the TRPs 210 may be at different locations, or be at the same location. In the first mode, each TRP 210 may have a different PCI”)] see also, e.g., ¶0092 of US Provisional App. No. 63/018,408) and wherein the lower layer mobility is used to trigger a change of PCI upon reception of a lower layer signaling by the UE [¶0055, the L1 and L2-based inter-cell mobility is used to change the subset of serving PCIs via DCI or MAC-CE; note that the DCI which is received by user equipment and is a physical layer signaling/lower layer signaling since the DCI is transferred in a PDCCH, and the MAC-CE is also considered as a lower layer signaling] see also, e.g., ¶0092 of US Provisional App. No. 63/018,408).
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Zhou’232 to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Zhou’232 into the system of Hwang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring to reduce handover latency and signaling overhead while maintaining robust connectivity in a wireless network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang discloses, wherein the cell comprises a special cell, Spcell, of the SCG [¶0225, the SN determines to a conditional PSCell change, and selects, as a target, another cell in an SN secondary gNB (SgNB) previously received from the terminal (operation 15-15)].
Regarding claim 3, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 discloses, the method of Claim 2 as set forth above.
Hwang discloses, wherein the special cell comprises a primary SCG cell, PSCell, of the SCG [¶0225, the SN determines to a conditional PSCell change, and selects, as a target, another cell in an SN secondary gNB (SgNB) previously received from the terminal (operation 15-15)].
Regarding claim 5, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, “operating according to the mobility configuration” as set forth above, Hwang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhou’232 discloses, wherein operating according to the mobility configuration comprises at least one of:
performing layer one, L1, measurements or reporting for cells operating in a same frequency as the cell [¶0057, L1 metric, L1 reports (e.g., L1 RSRP, SINR, RSRQ) from a UE] on a same carrier frequency for all TRPs (cells)]; and receiving the lower layer signaling [¶0055, the L1 and L2-based inter-cell mobility is used to change the subset of serving PCIs via DCI or MAC-CE; note that since DCI or MAC-CE is a downlink control signal from network to UE, the UE receives the DCI or MAC-CE as the lower layer signaling; further note that the DCI which is received by user equipment and is a physical layer signaling/lower layer signaling since the DCI is transferred in a PDCCH].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhou’232 in the system of Hwang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, a change of a primary SCG cell, PSCell, of the SCG and/or that indicates a PCI change for the PSCell [FIG. 15; its related descriptions; ¶0224, the terminal receives measurement configuration information from secondary node (operation 15-05); further see ¶0225, the terminal transmits measurement report to the secondary node (operation 15-10) and the secondary node determines to a conditional PSCell change (operation 15-15)], Hwang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhou’232 discloses, wherein the lower layer signaling comprises a medium access control, MAC, control element that indicates a PCI change of a cell [¶0055, the L1 and L2-based inter-cell mobility is used to change the subset of serving PCIs via DCI or MAC-CE].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhou’232 in the system of Hwang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1) in view of Zhou’232 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345232 A1) and further in view of Wu et al (US Publication No. 2014/0220978 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang in view of Zhou’232 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Wu discloses, wherein the multiple PCIs correspond to cells operating in a same serving frequency [¶0044, a set of physical cell identities of second cells with a same frequency].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Wu to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Wu into the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring for fast and reliable cell identification and mobility without increasing higher layer signaling overhead, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1) in view of Zhou’232 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345232 A1) and further in view of Zhou’455 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0337455 A1)2.
Regarding claim 6, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 discloses, the method of Claim 5 as set forth above.
Hwang in view of Zhou’232 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhou’455 discloses, wherein the L1 measurements comprise synchronization signal reference signal received power, RSRP [¶0057, L1 RSRP measurements for reference signals; further see ¶0073, primary synchronization signal or a secondary synchronization signal], and/or channel state information RSRP measurements [¶0100 and 0106, L1 RSRP measurements for reference signals; further see ¶0073, channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS)] see also, e.g., ¶0063 and 0086 of US Provisional App. No. 63/015,365).
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Zhou’455 to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Zhou’455 into the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring to reduce handover latency and signaling overhead while maintaining robust connectivity in a wireless network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1) in view of Zhou’232 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345232 A1) and further in view of Jung et al (US Publication No. 2020/0367310 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang in view of Zhou’232 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Jung discloses, receiving the mobility configuration for the cell of the SCG with a configuration for modifying or adding MR-DC for the UE [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0252, the MN 1i-02 or the SN 1i-03 may perform an RRC reconfiguration procedure (1i-70) to modify MR-DC configuration with the UE 1i-01]; and applying the configuration for modifying or adding MR-DC for the UE [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0252, the UE 1i-01 may perform the RRC reconfiguration procedure with the SN 1i-03].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Jung to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Jung into the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring for fast adapting to changes of radio conditions and traffic demand, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 9, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Jung discloses, the method of Claim 8 as set forth above.
Hwang in view of Zhou’232 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Jung discloses, wherein the configuration for modifying or adding MR-DC is provided in a reconfiguration message for the SCG [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0252, the MN 1i-02 or the SN 1i-03 may perform an RRC reconfiguration procedure (1i-70) to modify MR-DC configuration with the UE 1i-01].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Jung in the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1) in view of Zhou’232 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345232 A1) and further in view of Tsuboi et al (WO 2019/244609 A1)3.
Regarding claim 10, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Jung discloses, the method of Claim 9 as set forth above.
Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Jung does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Tsuboi discloses, wherein the reconfiguration message comprises synchronization information [¶0117-0118, the ssb-PositionsInBurst is included in the system information notified by the logical channel BCCH. The ssb-PositionsInBurst may also be included in a reconfiguration message (RRC reconfiguration message) notified by the logical channel DCCH individually to each terminal device 2. Currently, ssb-PositionsInBurst is included in a reconfiguration message involving synchronization processing].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Jung with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Tsuboi to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Tsuboi into the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Jung would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring for fast and reliable timing alignment during cell change or reconfiguration, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1) in view of Zhou’232 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345232 A1) and further in view of Nagaraja et al (US Publication No. 2018/0324653 A1) and further in view of Zhou’429 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345429 A1) 4.
Regarding claim 12, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang in view of Zhou’232 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nagaraja discloses, receiving a contention free random access, CFRA, configuration associated to a plurality of beams [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0011 and 0088, UE receives a handover command including configuration for CFRA and one or more beams for CFRA], wherein the CFRA configuration is received with the first mobility configuration [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0011 and 0088, the CFRA configuration is received with the handover command]; and performing a random access procedure based on the CFRA configuration [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0074, initiates random access request using the CFRA procedure].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Nagaraja to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Nagaraja into the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., e.g., ensuring to reduce handover latency and signaling overhead while maintaining robust connectivity in a wireless network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Further, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhou’429 discloses, wherein each beam is associated to a different PCI [¶0082, UE 115-a may apply the beam configurations corresponding to the indicated selected subset of PCI states] see also, e.g., ¶0110 of US Provisional App. No. 63/018,273).
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Nagaraja with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Zhou’429 to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Zhou’429 into the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Nagaraja would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., e.g., ensuring for fast and reliable cell identification and mobility without increasing higher layer signaling overhead, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1) in view of Zhou’232 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345232 A1) and further in view of Nagaraja et al (US Publication No. 2018/0324653 A1) and further in view of Zhou’429 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345429 A1) and further in view of Jung et al (US Publication No. 2020/0367310 A1) .
Regarding claim 13, Hwang in view of Zhou’232, Nagaraja and Zhou’429 discloses, the method of Claim 12 as set forth above.
Hwang in view of Zhou’232, Nagaraja and Zhou’429 discloses, but Jung discloses, the CFRA configuration comprises at least one of: a configuration for changing or modifying MR-DC [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0252, the MN 1i-02 or the SN 1i-03 may perform an RRC reconfiguration procedure (1i-70) to modify MR-DC configuration with the UE 1i-01].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232, Nagaraja and Zhou’429 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Jung to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Jung into the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232, Nagaraja and Zhou’429 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring for fast adapting to changes of radio conditions and traffic demand, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1) in view of Zhou’232 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345232 A1) and further in view of Nagaraja et al (US Publication No. 2018/0324653 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang in view of Zhou’232 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nagaraja discloses, receiving a contention free random access, CFRA, configuration associated to a plurality of beams [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0011 and 0088, UE receives a handover command including configuration for CFBA and one or more beams for CFBA], wherein the CFRA configuration is received with the first mobility configuration [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0011 and 0088, the CFBA configuration is received with the handover command]; and performing a random access procedure based on the CFRA configuration [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0074, initiates random access request using the CFBA procedure].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Nagaraja in the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 12.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0369172 A1) in view of Zhou’232 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0345232 A1) and further in view of Nagaraja et al (US Publication No. 2018/0324653 A1) and further in view of Jung et al (US Publication No. 2020/0367310 A1) .
Regarding claim 15, Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Nagaraja discloses, the method of Claim 14 as set forth above.
Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Jung discloses wherein the CBRA configuration comprises at least one of:
a configuration for changing or modifying MR-DC [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0252, the MN 1i-02 or the SN 1i-03 may perform an RRC reconfiguration procedure (1i-70) to modify MR-DC configuration with the UE 1i-01].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Nagaraja with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Jung to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Jung into the system of Hwang in view of Zhou’232 and Nagaraja would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring for fast adapting to changes of radio conditions and traffic demand, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Zhou’232 claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/018,408 filed on 04/30/2020, thus Zhou’455 is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 11/03/2020.
2 Zhou’455 claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/015,365 filed on 04/24/2020, thus Zhou’455 is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 11/03/2020.
3 Copy of English translation (see attached) to Tsuboi is used for the sake of claim mapping purpose.
4 Zhou’429 claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/018,273 filed on 04/30/2020, thus Zhou’429 is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 11/03/2020.
Prosecution Insights