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 Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 08/29/2025 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Claims 1-30 and 34-44 are now cancelled. Claims 31-33 are amended. Claims 45-57 are new. Claim 16 being cancelled, its provisional rejection for non-statutory Double Patenting is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument/Remarks filed on 08/29/2025 (hereinafter Resp.) is fully considered as follows.
Applicant’s main argument is that “Chandrashekar does not disclose the claimed user equipment” as described in Amended Claim 31, and that “the asserted combination of Chandrashekar and Centonza is likewise deficient, even in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art” because “none of these disclosures tie a BWP identifier together with multiple TCI/RS beam indications in the Serving Cell Change Command sent by the source DU. Chandrashekar fails to disclose or suggest the specific contents of the cell switch command as required by claim 31.” – See Resp., ¶¶2-6:7-8. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, responding to applicant's argument against the references individually, 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). Therefore, Chandrashekar and Centonza are to be considered in combination for what each of them teaches and not separately for what each of them does not disclose.
Second, the Office action cites to Chandrashekar et al., U.S. Patent Application 20250081052 (hereinafter Chandrashekar), teaching the cell switch command comprises identifiers regarding the target cell, e.g., in Regarding Claim 31, at page 29, citing Chandrashekar (the UE, as shown in Fig. 6, is “configured with Multiple Transmission and Reception Point (mTRP) transmission and the non-serving cell of the mTRP transmission is a LTM Target gNB-DU” further stating that “the UE 410 has a radio link to the Serving gNB-DU 412 and non-serving cells, Target gNB-DU 414, in mTRP configuration” – See [¶0088], that “The Serving gNB-DU 312 sends to the UE 310 an RRC Reconfiguration message 352. The RRC Reconfiguration message 352 provides the UE the LTM Target Cell Configuration” whereby the “DL RRC message 350 includes updated radio resource configuration of the candidate/target cell having the reserved partial or full radio resources of the one or more LTM candidate/target cells 314” – See [¶¶0071-72] and then “The Serving gNB-DU 312 sends the UE 310 a MAC CE command 372 (Serving Cell Change Command)” – See [¶0074]). Even without the citation to Centonza, at page 2:27-29, referencing 3GPP TS 38.321 V17.3.0 (2022-12)” Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 17)” (hereinafter TS 38.321), and further at page 5:29-30, to 3GPP TS 38.331, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.331 V17.3.4 (2022-12), “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)”; published January 2023 (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331, a person of ordinary skills in the art would know, e.g., from the recited paragraphs of Chandrashekar supra, that a UE can be configured through RRC Reconfiguration message with (secondary) cell configuration, such as an LTM Target gNB-DU, because “[t]he RRCReconfiguration message is the command to modify an RRC connection. It may convey information for measurement configuration, mobility control, radio resource configuration (including RBs, MAC main configuration and physical channel configuration)” – See 3GPP TS 38.331:374-381, referencing the CellGroupConfig IE used in Chandrashekar to configure the UE for LTM Target gNB-DU, whereby “The CellGroupConfig IE is used to configure a master cell group (MCG) or secondary cell group (SCG). A cell group comprises of one MAC entity, a set of logical channels with associated RLC entities and of a primary cell (SpCell) and one or more secondary cells (SCells)” – See 3GPP TS 38.331:519-529, wherein for each candidate serving cell, whether activated or not, as indicated in the sCellState parameter, there is a pointer to the ServingCellConfig IE, and wherein the parameters simultaneousTCI-UpdateList1/2 and simultaneousU-TCI-UpdateList1-4 “List of serving cells which can be updated simultaneously for [Unified] TCI relation with a MAC CE”; whereby the IE ServingCellConfig “is used to configure (add or modify) the UE with a serving cell, which may be the SpCell or an SCell of an MCG or SCG. The parameters herein are mostly UE specific but partly also cell specific (e.g. in additionally configured bandwidth parts)” pointing to initialDownlinkBWP, initialUplinkBWP (which is UE-dedicated) and tci-ActivatedConfig-r17 (“If configured for an SCell, or if configured for the PSCell when the SCG is being activated upon the reception of the containing message, the UE shall consider the TCI states provided in this field as the activated TCI states for PDCCH/PDSCH reception on this serving cell. If configured for the PSCell when the SCG is indicated as deactivated in the containing message: -the UE shall consider the TCI states provided in this field as the TCI states to be activated for PDCCH/PDSCH reception upon a later SCG activation in which tci-ActivatedConfig is absent”) – 3GPP TS 38.331: 850-862. Furthermore, as taught by Chandrashekar, supra, when the Serving gNB-DU sends the configured UE a MAC CE command to switch cells, one MAC CE in the command may be a UE-specific PDSCH TCI state activation/deactivation CE, as shown in Figure 6.1.3.24.24-1, 3GPP TS 38.321:181, copied below, indicating, e.g., the downlink TCIs for the mTRP target DU:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Applicant further argues that “Centonza discusses multiple active TCI states but in the context of PDSCH/PDCCH configuration, not initial transmissions at a target cell following a handover” – See Resp.,¶7:8, a person of ordinary skills in the art would know that the UE must first perform beamforming for PDSCH/PDCCH reception on a new serving cell so that to receive a DCI scheduling UL resources for initial transmissions at the target cell (and that is the case when the UE is TA aligned/synchronized with the gNB, otherwise the UE must perform first random access). That is precisely the purpose of a MAC CE such as the one illustrated above, although the specification is not limited only to activating/deactivating only DL TCI states. In addition, Claim 31, as amended, requires “transmission or reception with the target cell”
Therefore, with this information readily available to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing day of the present application, Applicant’s above arguments that Chandrashekar and/or Centonza do(es) not teaches how to “tie a BWP identifier together with multiple TCI/RS beam indications in the Serving Cell Change Command sent by the source DU” and/or “the delivery of such information in a cell switch command issued by source DU during handover” and/or that “Chandrashekar confirms the Serving DU sends a cell switch command (paragraph [0074]) but does not disclose that the Serving DU provides target cell TRP beam indications in that message” are unpersuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s next argument that “Chandrashekar's command addresses handover initiation (UL sync, RACH allocation), not beam management. And Centonza's MAC CEs address beam management during ongoing communication, not mobility signaling,” examiner respectfully disagrees with the reading of these references.
Chandrashekar teaches “Layer 1/Layer 2 (L1)/L2 Triggered Mobility (LTM) to enable a serving cell change via L1/L2 signaling, while keeping configuration of the upper layers and/or minimizing changes of configuration of the lower layers,” as agreed in 3GPP Release 18 – See [¶0005]. Chandrashekar teaches that a MAC CE command is sent to the UE specifically for “LTM cell switch from the serving cell” . . . “[b]ased on the radio condition of the Target gNB-DU 314 being satisfied, i.e., radio condition being greater than the pre-defined RSRP Threshold, an LTM cell switch is made 370 from the Serving gNB-DU 312 to the prepared Target gNB-DU 314. The Serving gNB-DU 312 sends the UE 310 a MAC CE command 372 (Serving Cell Change Command). The Serving gNB-DU 312 sends the gNB-CU-CP 316 a Serving Cell Change Notification (Cell ID) 374” – See [¶0101] and Fig. 3, and that command is not to be conflated with the RRC Reconfiguration commands for LTM Target Cell Configuration that happen before the MAC CE command – See [¶0100] (“The gNB-CU-CP sends the updated radio resource configuration having the reserved partial or full radio resources of the one or more LTM candidate cells to the UE via the serving cell S546. Referring to FIG. 3, the gNB-CUCP 316 sends the Serving gNB-DU 312 a Downlink (DL) RRC message 350 via an Fl interface. The DL RRC message 350 includes updated radio resource configuration of the candidate/target cell having the reserved partial or full radio resources of the one or more LTM candidate/target cells 314”). Even if, arguendo, the gNB-DU would use MAC CE to send the UE an Absolute Time Alignment (TA, or UL sync, as Applicant argues) with the target cell, such command would serve no purpose without a MAC CE command that activates the target cell in the first place, including indication of UL/DL beam states to transmit/receive on the activated cell, i.e., beam management at the UE. In addition, the standard allows multiple MAC CEs in one command (PDU) – See 3GPP TS 38.321: 158. To be sure, Chandrashekar discloses both “legacy baseline NR L3 mobility” wherein “the UE 210 obtains the Timing Advance (TA) towards the target cell and completes the UL synchronization via the RACH procedure” – See [¶0056] (emphasis added) and that “RACH-less solutions are used to reduce the interruption time during handover” – See [¶0057] whereby “Optimized Early Data Forwarding based on the received event based L1 measurement report and a preconfigured L1 RSRP Threshold value [for] the candidate/target gNB-DU 414” – See [¶0080] and Fig. 4, showing that “Data Forwarding 462 [to the Target gNB-DU 414] is performed based on the radio condition, and just before the serving cell change has taken place” – See [¶0081](emphasis added), i.e., the “UL sync, RACH allocation” operations in Chandrashekar are in preparation of the cell switch command and not the cell switch command itself, as argued by the Applicant.
Centonza starts by teaching the same status in 3GPP Release-18 regarding “the understanding may be that the UE receives a L1/L2 signaling (instead of RRC signaling) indicating a TCI state (e.g. for PDCCH) possibly associated to an SSB whose Physical Cell Identifier (PCI) is not necessarily the same as the PCI of the cell the UE has connected to . . . In other words that L l/L2-centric inter-cell mobility procedure can be interpreted as a beam management operation expanding the coverage of multiple SSBs associated to multiple PCIs, which may be associated to the same cell or different cells” – See 4:1-15, further stating that “in mTRP inter-cell, these TCI states may be dynamically activated/ deactivated via L l/L2 signaling ( e.g. Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE), Downlink Control Information (DCI)), and the UE possibly have multiple of these TCI states simultaneously activated” – See 4:29-32, whereby “it would be the DU-gNB that is responsible for L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility and for inter-cell mTRP procedures” – See 5:4-5 but “some mobility decisions are taken by the CU (Layer 3 - L3 mobility/ handovers/ PS Cell changes) and some other decisions are taken by the DU (L l/L2 centric inter-cell mobility)” – See 9:5-9. Because MAC CEs serve many purposes – See, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.321:105, there is no argument here that the MAC CE command disclosed in Centonza, 7:28-30 as in “the UE may receive a MAC CE indicating which TCI states are to be activated/deactivated for UE-specific PDCCH,” which by standard indicates a Serving Cell IDs and a BWP for the activated TCIs, as in the figure above, could be used in cell switch based on a trigger, as in Chandrashekar, as well as for mTRP inter-cell switch, aka. “ongoing communication,” as in Centonza. Thinking otherwise would defeat the purpose of standards and of their inherent efficiency and interoperability and contradict the Specification – See, e.g., [¶0002] (stating: “In 3GPP, LTM refers to layer 1 (L1)/layer 2 (L2) triggered mobility (which is also referred to as L1/L2 inter-cell mobility)”). Furthermore, an argument based on intended is not the same as a show of a structural aspect that would impede upon combining these references. Lack of such showing, this argument is also unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness combining Chandrashekar with Centonza is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, e.g., the knowledge from 3GPP standard specifications available before the effective filing date, as indicated above, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In addition, here, the standardization specific to the wireless industry provides: (1) guidance for one of ordinary skills in the art beyond what is explicitly disclosed in prior art; and (2) interoperability of different solutions serving different purposes. Therefore, without specifically pointing out the patentable novelty which the Applicant thinks the examiner gleaned from the present disclosure and that was not present in the art disclosed by the references cited in the Office action, the hindsight argument fails to persuade.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and addressed but are unpersuasive. In addition, Applicant arguments are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment.
Claim Objections
Amended Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “Rel-17 group-based beam reporting” should read “Rel-17 groupBasedBeamReporting” or “. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 56, dependent from Amended Claim 31, recites the limitation "the reported layer-1 measurement is higher than the others in the group" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no group is yet described in Amended Claim 31 or in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 31-33, 48, 52-55, and 57, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar et al., U.S. Patent Application 20250081052 (hereinafter Chandrashekar) and further in view of Yuan et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO 2024/138640 (hereinafter Yuan).
Regarding Amended Claim 31, Chandrashekar teaching that 3GPP “Release 18 introduced Layer I/Layer 2 (L1)/L2 Triggered Mobility (LTM) to enable a serving cell change via L1/L2 signaling, while keeping configuration of the upper layers and/or minimizing changes of configuration of the lower layers, . . . to reduce the latency, overhead and interruption time during handover” – See [¶0005], discloses, in Figs. 1-4 and 6, a user equipment comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory including program code which when executed by the at least one processor (a “wireless device utilized by a subscriber or user of a wireless communication service to receive or convey data” – See [¶0027], e.g., UE 210, 310, and 410 as shown in Figs. 1-4, or an apparatus as in Fig. 6 wherein a “Processing circuitry 600 also includes a Non-Transitory, Computer-Readable Storage Medium 604 that is used to implement enhancements to a LTM HO procedure. Non-Transitory, Computer-Readable Storage Medium 604, amongst other things, is encoded with, i.e., stores, Instructions 606, i.e., computer program code, that are executed by Processor 602 causes Processor 602 to perform operations for providing enhancements to a LTM HO procedure” – See [¶0105] and whereby the procedure comprises preparing the UE for the LTM HO by “sending, by a gNBCentralized Unit Control Plane (gNB-CU-CP) to a User Equipment directly or via a serving gNB-Distributed Units (gNB-DU), one or more Radio Resource Control (RRC) messages with LTM candidate cell configuration of one or more LTM candidate gNB-DUs” – See [¶0017]) causing the user equipment to at least:
receive, from a source distributed unit, a cell switch command comprising a bandwidth part identifier and multiple transmit and receive points beam indications comprising multiple transmission configuration index states or reference signal identifiers associated with the multiple transmit and receive points at a target cell (“The Serving gNB-DU 312 sends the UE 310 a MAC CE command 372 (Serving Cell Change Command)” – See [¶0074]; whereby the UE was “configured with Multiple Transmission and Reception Point (mTRP) transmission and the non-serving cell of the mTRP transmission is a LTM Target gNB-DU” and “has a radio link to the Serving gNB-DU 412 and non-serving cells, Target gNB-DU 414, in mTRP configuration” – See [¶0088]). Although Chandrashekar teaches that “the gNB, . . initiates LTM cell switch to the target cell by transmitting a MAC CE message 256 that includes an LTM cell switch command that includes the candidate configuration index of the target cell” – See [¶0051] without describing the content of the cell switch command, a person of ordinary skills in the art would know that § 6.1.3, 3GPP TS 38.321:158 describes the structure and function on each MAC Control Element (CE), of which can be multiple, in the same command1.
In the alternative, Yuan also teaches that “[i]n 3 GPP Release 18, UE mobility may involve movement of a UE from one special cell (SpCell), such as a primary cell or a primary secondary cell, to another SpCell with updates that are indicated with L1 or L2 signaling. L1 signaling may involve downlink control information (DCI) at the physical layer and L2 signaling may include a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE) at the MAC layer” and “[t]he UE may move from an active serving cell to a candidate cell among one or more candidate cells (e.g., of a preconfigured candidate SpCell set),” e.g., as taught by Chandrashekar, supra.
Yuan further teaches a “user equipment (UE) . . . receiving a cell switching command that indicates at least one unified [or non-unified] transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state for a candidate cell associated with Layer 1 (L1) or Layer 2 (L2) mobility” including “applying the at least one unified TCI state” – See [¶¶0005-6] and Fig. 12, whereby a “legacy TCI state may be referred to as a ‘non-unified TCI state’ and may be a TCI state that is used according to a 3GPP standards release that is before unified TCI states were introduced in 3GPP Release 17” – See [¶0104]. Therefore, Yuan teaches the MAC CE command (or a DCI) that indicates a UE to switch cells (i.e., move from an active serving cell to a candidate cell) comprises TCI states, whereby “[a] TCI state may indicate a directionality or a characteristic of the downlink[/uplink] beam” – See [¶0092], i.e., “beam indications,” together with “a bandwidth part (BWP) identifier (ID), and a cell ID for the candidate cell” and, when “separate TCI states are configured for a candidate cell, the cell switching command may indicate a downlink TCI state, an uplink TCI state, a downlink BWP ID, an uplink BWP ID, and a cell ID for the candidate cell” and “may indicate one unified TCI state per TRP among multiple TRPs” – See [¶0106]; see also Figure 6.1.3.24.24-1, 3GPP TS 38.321:181 reproduced supra, showing a non-unified TCI states in a MAC CE, and Figure 6.1.3.47-1, 3GPP TS 38.321:202, describing the structure of a unified TCI states MAC CE as containing states for both UL and DL transmission in the new serving cell, as shown below, and further explained by Yuan in [¶0096]:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, Chandrashekar and Yuan each discloses a UE receiving a cell switch command to perform a serving cell change via L1/L2 signaling. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the structure of the MAC CE comprised in the cell switch command disclosed in Yuan could have been substituted in for the MAC CE command (Serving Cell Change Command) sent by the Serving gNB-DU to the UE of Chandrashekar because both cell switch commands are sent to the UE by a distributed network node (a DU in Yuan and a gNB-DU Chandrashekar) and both provide the same (standard) procedure to be performed by the UE. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of using 3GPP standard defined MAC CEs, as taught by Yuan.
Yuan further teaches determine a first transmission configuration index state or a first reference signal identifier in the beam indications of the target cell, wherein the first transmission configuration index state or a first quasi co-located source reference signal is used for the first transmission or reception with the target cell (“the UE 620 may apply the TCI state” which may “may include using a beam associated with the TCI state” and “As shown by reference number 640, the UE 620 may communicate using the TCI state, which may include transmitting or receiving a communication” – See [¶0105] and Fig. 6, e.g., when “the cell switching command may indicate at least one nonunified TCI state” and the “non-unified TCI state may be a single downlink TCI state” – See [¶0107]) and
determine a second transmission configuration index state or a second reference signal identifier in the beam indication of the target cell which indicates the second transmission configuration index state or the second quasi co-located source reference signal are used for second transmission or reception with the target cell (“In multiple TRP (mTRP) operation, the UE 620 may be indicated with a beam per TRP,” e.g., “if the TCI state configured for the candidate cell is a unified TCI state, two unified TCI states may be indicated for two TRPs respectively” – See [¶0108], i.e., the UE would determine a first TCI state for transmission or reception with the first TRP, as explained supra, and, in the same way, a second TCI state for transmission or reception with the second TRP). Because the UE in Chandrashekar is configured for mTRP target cells, these operations, as taught by Yuan, are obvious for a person of ordinary skills in the art provided with the Serving Cell Change MAC CE command of Chandrashekar structured as taught by Yuan and the relevant 3GPP standard.
Therefore, Amended Claim 31 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
Regarding Amended Claim 32, user equipment of claim 31, wherein the user equipment is further caused to at least receive, in the cell switch command, identifiers of the beam indications from the multiple transmit and receive points beam indications (e.g., the “UE 410 being configured with Multiple Transmission and Reception Point (mTRP) transmission and the non-serving cell of the mTRP transmission is a LTM Target gNB-DU” – See [¶0088], when the “Serving gNB-DU 412 sends the UE 410 a MAC CE 480 with the serving cell change command” that “includes the Cell ID of the Target gNB-DU” indicating the mTRP of the LTM Target gNB-DU – See [¶0085], the MAC CE then must contain TCI states, i.e., identifiers of the beam indications, from the multiple transmit and receive points beam indications, as taught in Yuan, supra; furthermore, the indications are from the multiple transmit and receive points indications because “[t]he candidate cell is able to be in the same gNB-DU 222, or in another gNB-DU (not shown) of the same gNB 220” but not “outside the gNB 220, because the LTM functionality is limited to one gNB in 3GPP Release 18,” i.e., report into the same gNB-CU, and “the gNB-CU 224 prepares one or more LTM candidate cells and the candidate cell configuration is sent to the UE” via the Serving gNB-DU which by now knows which TCI states are best for the mTRP communication – See [¶0040]).
Although Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose how the UE would use the TCI indications, from the multiple transmit and receive points beam indications, received in the Serving Cell Change Command, Yuan teaches based on the identifiers of the beam indications from the multiple transmit and receive points beam indications in the cell switch command, determine the beam indications for at least one transmission or reception with the target distributed unit upon the cell switch (“If a TCI state is activated for the UE 120, then the UE 120 may have one or more antenna configurations based at least in part on the TCI state” – See [¶0093], i.e., “the UE 620 may apply the TCI state” including “applying a unified TCI state or a non-unified TCI state” by “using a beam associated with the TCI state”; then “the UE 620 may communicate using the TCI state, which may include transmitting or receiving a communication” – See [¶0103], whereby “[b]y using a cell switching command to indicate a TCI state for L1 or L2 mobility, the UE may conserve signaling resources while performing L1 or L2 mobility operations” – See [¶0102]; the operation includes a case where for “multiple TRP (mTRP) operation, the UE 620 may be indicated with a beam per TRP” – See [¶0108] and the UE may choose which beam to use first).
Therefore, Amended Claim 32 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
Regarding Amended Claim 33, Chandrashekar further teaches equipment of claim 31,
wherein the user equipment is further caused to at least select the at least one beam indication from the multiple transmit and receive points beam indications provided in the cell switch command, for at least one transmission or reception with the target cell based on reported layer 1 measurements (because “Optimized Early Data Forwarding based on the received event based L1 measurement report and a preconfigured L1 RSRP Threshold value [for] the candidate/target gNB-DU 414” – See [¶0080] and Fig. 4, showing that “Data Forwarding 462 [to the Target gNB-DU 414] is performed based on the radio condition, and just before the serving cell change has taken place” and “the UE 410 is most likely to come to [i.e., select] this cell because the pre-configured L1 threshold is used as a benchmark indicating that the UE 410 is reporting the Target gNB-DU 414 at an acceptable level” – See [¶0081], the “UE 410 being configured with Multiple Transmission and Reception Point (mTRP) transmission and the non-serving cell of the mTRP transmission is a LTM Target gNB-DU 414” – See [¶0088]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 33 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
Regarding Claim 48, dependent from Amended Claim 31, Chandrashekar further teaches the user equipment of claim 31, wherein the user equipment is further configured with a multiple transmit and receive point beam measurement and reporting configuration for the target cell (“in response to a UE 410 being configured with Multiple Transmission and Reception Point (mTRP) transmission and the non-serving cell of the mTRP transmission is a LTM Target gNB-DU 414. Since the UE 410 has a radio link to the Serving gNB-DU 412 and non-serving cells, Target gNB-DU 414, in mTRP configuration, event based Ll Measurements Reports 452 are able to be sent to the Target gNB-DU 414 directly” – See [¶0088] whereby “[t]he UE 210 is also configured to perform UL and DL sync with the candidate cells and periodically send L1 measurement reports 234 to the gNB-DU 222. Based on the received L1 measurement reports 234, the gNB-DU 222 decides regarding the LTM serving cell” in addition to being “configured to report L3 measurements for the candidate cells” – See [¶0040]).
Therefore, Claim 48 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
Regarding Claim 52, dependent from Amended Claim 31, Chandrashekar teaches the user equipment of claim 31, wherein the user equipment is configured to receive, via a source distributed unit, a cell switch command based on layer-1 measurement reports of the user equipment (“The UE 310 sends Intra/Inter-Frequency L1 Measurement Report 360 to the Serving gNB-DU 312” and “[b]ased on the radio condition of the Target gNB-DU 314 being satisfied, i.e., radio condition being greater than the pre-defined RSRP Threshold, an LTM cell switch is made 370 from the Serving gNB-DU 312 to the prepared Target gNB-DU 314” whereby “[t]he Serving gNB-DU 312 sends the UE 310 a MAC CE command 372 (Serving Cell Change Command)”– See [¶¶0073-74] and “an LTM cell switch command . . . includes the candidate configuration index of the target cell” – See [¶0051]). Although Chandrashekar does not explicitly teach the contents of the cell switch command, i.e., what is the candidate configuration index, one of ordinary skills in the art would know that before the filing date of the present application 3GPP RAN2 had agreed MAC CE candidate configuration index points to RRC CellGroupConfig IE index/ID which further indicates the UL/DL BWP of the cell, and, in addition, a MAC CE can indicate TCI state(s) (or other beam info) to be activate for the target Cell(s) and even update the BWP of the cell at switch time – See Note 1, supra.
In the alternative, Yuan teaches including a bandwidth part configuration and beam indication selected by the source distributed unit based on layer-1 measurement reports of the user equipment (“L1 signaling may involve downlink control information (DCI) at the physical layer and L2 signaling may include a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE) at the MAC layer. The updates may be based on LI measurements and may be for intra-frequency or interfrequency. The UE may move from an active serving cell to a candidate cell among one or more candidate cells (e.g., of a preconfigured candidate SpCell set)” – See [¶0101]; whereby “[t]he cell switching command may indicate a joint TCI state, a bandwidth part (BWP) identifier (ID), and a cell ID for the candidate cell” – See [¶0106] and “[b]y using a cell switching command to indicate a TCI state for LI or L2 mobility, the UE may conserve signaling resources while performing LI or L2 mobility operations” – See [¶0104] with distributed network nodes as shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, Claim 52 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
Regarding Claim 53, dependent from Amended Claim 31, Chandrashekar The user equipment of claim 31, wherein the user equipment is configured to receive, in the cell switch command, a bandwidth part configuration and beam indication determined at a target distributed unit based on layer-1 measurement reports of the user equipment forwarded from the source distributed unit (“Based on the event-based L1 measurement report 334/338, 336 of the UE 310 being received at the target gNB-DU 314 along with the pre-configured L1 RSRP threshold value, the candidate/target gNB-DU 314 determines whether a radio condition of one of the one or more LTM candidate gNB-DUs meets a predetermined . . . criteria, e.g., a predetermined Reference Signal Receive Power (RSRP) Threshold 340. RSRP is the average received power of a RS resource element” and “reserves RACH resources corresponding to the best beam/beam group for the UE 310” whereby “the event based L1 measurements reports 336 are . . . forwarded 338 to the Target gNB-DU 314” – See [¶0066]; “the RACH resource allocation is performed closer to the Serving Cell 312 change, and based on radio conditions (based on the Pre-defined RSRP Threshold)” – See [¶0070], therefore it follows that the cell switch is for the cell on which the target gNB-DU made resource reservations, i.e., the “LTM cell switch command . . . includes the candidate configuration index of the target cell” chosen by the target gNB-DU – See [¶0051], wherein the a bandwidth part configuration and beam indication are other parameters of the MAC CE command, as explained, e.g., in Regarding Claim 52, supra).
Therefore, Claim 53 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
Regarding Claim 54, dependent from Amended Claim 31, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan further teaches the user equipment of claim 31, wherein the user equipment is configured to receive, in the cell switch command, a bandwidth part configuration and beam indication determined at a control unit based on layer-1 measurement reports of the user equipment forwarded from a distributed unit (“Based on the event-based Ll measurement report 334/338, 336 of the UE 310 being received at the target gNB-DU 314 along with the pre-configured L1 RSRP threshold value, the candidate/target gNB-DU 314 determines whether a radio condition of one of the one or more LTM candidate gNB-DUs meets a predetermined resource reservation criteria” – See [¶0066] and “[t]he RACH resources and other RRM resources reserved at the Target gNB-DU 314, 336 is sent from Target gNB-DU 314 to the gNB-CU-CP 316 using the UE Context Modification Required message 342 via the Fl interface” – See [¶0070], then “[t]he gNB-CU-CP 316 sends the Serving gNB-DU 312 a Downlink (DL) RRC message 350 via an Fl interface. The DL RRC message 350 includes updated radio resource configuration of the candidate/target cell having the reserved partial or full radio resources of the one or more LTM candidate/target cells 314” – See [¶0071], whereby the updated resource configuration means CellGroupConfig IE, as taught by 3GPP TS 38.331:520-527, describing the CellGroupConfig IE), and the CellGroupConfig IE as taught in the 3GPP specification, indicates: (1) the list of secondary cells for the UE wherein each ScellConfig IE points, for each cell, to its configuration as a serving cell, respectively its ServingCellConfig IE which indicates the available UL/DL BWPs in each cell, including the default DL BWP to receive further configuration in that cell; and (2) the list of serving cells which can be updated simultaneously for TCI states with a MAC CE – See 3GPP 38.331:850-855; therefore, when the source gNB-DU issues the LTM cell switch command based on layer-1 measurement reports of the user equipment forwarded from a distributed unit, the MAC CE will contain configurations received from the CU in the last RRC Reconfiguration as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, and that is BWP and TCI states for the target cell, also taught by Yuan)
Therefore, Claim 54 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
Regarding Claim 55, dependent from Amended Claim 31, Chandrashekar teaches the user equipment of claim 31 wherein the user equipment is configured to receive a cell switch containing a candidate configuration index (“the gNB 220 makes an LTM Decision 254 to select one of the candidate configurations at a target configuration for LTM, initiates LTM cell switch to the target cell by transmitting a MAC CE message 256 that includes an LTM cell switch command that includes the candidate configuration index of the target cell” – See [¶0051], whereby the candidate configuration index points to RRC CellGroupConfig IE index/ID, as explained in Note 1, supra). Although each serving cell in CellGroupConfig IE points to its ServingCellConfig IE containing values for parameters such as initialDownlinkBWP, pdcch-ServingCellConfig and tci-ActivatedConfig-r17 – See 3GPP 38.331:850-855, which can be used in a combined MAC CE cell switch command as explained in Note 1, supra, Chandrashekar does not explicitly teach use a transmission configuration index state provided in the cell switch command to assume quasi co-location for a first downlink or uplink transmission or reception with the target cell.
Yuan teaches use a transmission configuration index state provided in the cell switch command to assume quasi co-location for a first downlink or uplink transmission or reception with the target cell (“a cell switch command that indicates a TCI state for a candidate cell associated with LI or L2 mobility” – See [¶0103] and Fig. 6 whereby “when separate TCI states are configured for a candidate cell, the cell switching command may indicate a downlink TCI state, an uplink TCI state, a downlink BWP ID, an uplink BWP ID, and a cell ID for the candidate cell” – See [¶0106] and “[d]ownlink and uplink channels may use a QCL Type-D reference signal in the single downlink TCI state for beam indication” – See [¶0107]; then “the UE 620 may apply the TCI state” and “may communicate using the TCI state, which may include transmitting or receiving a communication” – See [¶0105]).
Therefore, Claim 55 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
Regarding Claim 57, it merely recites the steps executed by the UE disclosed in Amended Claim 31, using the same language and no other limitations. Because Amended Claim 31 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan, Claim 57 is also obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
In sum, Claims 31-33, 48, 52-55, and 57, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan.
Claims 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan as applied to Amended Claim 31 above, and further in view of Centonza et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication WO 2022/234540 (hereinafter Centonza).
Regarding Claim 45, dependent from Amended Claim 31, Chandrashekar teaches the user equipment of claim 31, wherein the user equipment is configured with a target cell configuration (as shown in Fig. 2, at step 237, “the UE 210 is able to be configured with 8 candidate cells out of which one candidate cell is able to be chosen as a target cell. The target cell is chosen by the serving gNB-DU 222 based on the event/periodic L1 measurements reports 234 that are received from the UE 210” – See [¶0041] whereby “[t]he gNB 220 transmits an RRC reconfiguration message 237 to the UE 210 including the configuration of one or multiple LTM candidate target cells” – See [¶0043] and including “Multiple Transmission And Reception Point (mTRP) transmission being configured for the UE” – See [¶0065]). Although Chandrashekar teaches UE being configured through RRC CellGroupConfig – See, e.g., [¶0063] and Fig. 3, specifically for dedicated RACH resources (through the rach-ConfigDedicated parameter of the CellGroupConfig IE, as taught by 3GPP TS 38.331:520-527, describing the CellGroupConfig IE), and the CellGroupConfig IE as taught in the 3GPP specification, indicates: (1) the list of secondary cells for the UE wherein each ScellConfig IE points, for each cell, to its configuration as a serving cell, respectively its ServingCellConfig IE which indicates the available UL/DL BWPs in each cell, including the default DL BWP to receive further configuration in that cell; and (2) the list of serving cells which can be updated simultaneously for TCI relation with a MAC CE – See 3GPP 38.331:850-855, both Chandrashekar and Yuan stop short of explicitly teaching configuration for a multiple transmit and receive point (mTRP) operation for the target cell.
Centonza, teaching that a “DU can perform a L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility operation” – See 9:34; 10:1-6, whereby “the UE receives a L1/L2 signaling (instead of RRC signaling) indicating a TCI state (e.g. for PDCCH) possibly associated to an SSB whose Physical Cell Identifier (PCI) is not necessarily the same as the PCI of the cell the UE has connected to” – See 4:9-12, further teaches “solutions for multi-TRP inter-cell operation, wherein the UE can be configured by the network to transmit and/or receive information to/from different TRPs wherein each TRP may be associated to a different cell and/or at least a different PCI” – See 4:24-27, whereby “DU-gNB is responsible for L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility and for inter-cell mTRP procedures,”– See 5:4-5, i.e., the DU that sends the L1/L2 cell switch command (and configures the UE with target cells through RRC), as taught by Chandrashekar in view of Yuan, also configures the UE for mTRP operations.
Regarding using RRC CellGroupConfig in Centonza, “TCI states are currently configured as part of the so-called CellGroupConfig which is a Distributed Unit (DU) configuration (i.e., decided by the baseband unit) in a Central Unit-Distributed Unit (CU-DU) split architecture” and “conveyed to the UE . . . e.g. during handovers, intra-cell reconfigurations or transitions from Idle to Connected” –See 2:5-19 and Fig. 1, in accord with Chandrashekar in view of Yuan. In addition, Centonza further teaches mTRP configuration by MAC CE, including the bandwidth part configuration for a multiple transmit and receive point (mTRP) operation for the target cell2 (“only one Uplink (UL) BWP for each uplink carrier and one Downlink (DL) BWP or only one DL/UL BWP pair can be active at a time in an active serving cell” – See 6: 15-16, whereby “the ‘cells in use’ (or being used, or being used for inter-cell mTRP) may correspond to the cells/ PCIs whose Refence Signals (RSs), e.g. SSBs, are configured as QCL sources of TCI states that are activated at the UE for mTRP operation” – See 45:3-6, and “the DU sends a MAC CE or DCI to the UE for indicating an inter-cell mTRP configuration” – See 44:30-32).
Thus, Centonza and Chandrashekar in view of Yuan each teaches L1/L2 centric mobility using MAC CE to indicate to the UE to switch to a new serving cell whereby the UE may be configured for mTRP operations. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the MAC CE configuring the mTRP operation of the UE for a BWP to be used with the active cell could have been combined with the MAC CE configuring the cell the UE is switched to as disclosed in Centonza in view of Yuan because these configurations rely on known RRC CellGroupConfig information elements and also several MAC CEs can be combined in the same MAC CE command (PDU). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of using the 3GPP standard defined MAC CE commands for both inter-cell LTM and mTRP operations, as taught by Centonza.
Therefore, Claim 45 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and further in view of Centonza.
Regarding Claim 46, dependent from Claim 45, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan further teaches the user equipment of claim 45, whereby “[t]he set of activated TCI states for downlink control channel communications may correspond to beams that the network node 110 may use for downlink transmission on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or in a control resource set (CORESET)” – See Yuan:[¶0093] and whereby the set of activated TCI states may be sent to the UE either by the RRC CellGroupConfig IE – See 3GPP TS 38.331:524 (stating that “Network should not configure serving cells that are configured with a BWP with two different values for the coresetPoolIndex in the simultaneousTCI-UpdateList”) whereby coresetPoolIndex is configured with 1 for at least one CORESET in the same BWP – See id.:717. Furthermore, because each serving cell in CellGroupConfig IE points to its ServingCellConfig IE containing values for parameters such as initialDownlinkBWP, pdcch-ServingCellConfig and tci-ActivatedConfig-r17 but also “enableDefaultTCI-StatePerCoresetPoolIndex,” which, if present, “indicates the UE shall follow the release 16 behavior of default TCI state per CORESETPoolindex when the UE is configured by higher layer parameter PDCCH-Config that contains two different values of CORESETPoolIndex – See 3GPP 38.331:850-855, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan effectively teaches wherein the bandwidth part configuration comprises a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) configuration including control resource sets (CORESETs) associated with multiple CORESET pool indices.
In addition, Centonza further teaches that “The network may indicate to the UE a TCI state for PDCCH reception for a CORESET of a Serving Cell (or a set of Serving Cells configured in simultaneousTCIUpdateList1 or simultaneousTCI-UpdateList2) by sending the TCI State Indication for UEspecific PDCCH MAC CE (see 6.1.3.15 in TS 38.321)” – See 7:28-33, whereby § 6.1.3.15, 3GPP TS 38.321:173 shows that the UE-specific PDCCH MAC CE contains “ControlResourceSetId as specified in TS 38.331 [5], for which the TCI State is being indicated” and § 6.1.3.44, 3GPP TS 38.321:198, disclosing the enhanced version of the UE-specific PDCCH MAC CE and noting that “NOTE1: The Enhanced TCI State Indication for UE specific PDCCH MAC CE is not applicable to any of the configured CORESETs in a BWP if the CORESETs are configured with different CORESETPoolindex values in the BWP.”
Therefore, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and further in view of Centonza, teaches that whether the UE of Claim 45 is (pre)configured by RRC or MAC CE for indicating active TCI states in a serving cell, the bandwidth part configuration comprises a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) configuration including control resource sets (CORESETs) associated with multiple CORESET pool indices.
Thus, Claim 46 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and further in view of Centonza.
Regarding Claim 47, dependent from Claim 46, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan teaches the user equipment of claim 46, wherein the target cell configuration includes a set of bandwidth part configurations that include one or more mTRP configurations and one or more single transmit and receive point (sTRP) configurations (“In multiple TRP (mTRP) operation, the UE 620 may be indicated with a beam per TRP” through “one non-unified TCI states per TRP among multiple TRPs,” i.e., sTRP configuration or, “if the TCI state configured for the candidate cell is a unified TCI state, two unified TCI states may be indicated for two TRPs respectively,” i.e. mTRP configuration -– See Yuan:[¶0108] whereby indicating means “a downlink TCI state, an uplink TCI state, a downlink BWP ID, an uplink BWP ID, and a cell ID for the candidate cell” – See Yuan:[¶0106]). Centonza further teaches that “the DU sends a MAC CE or DCI to the UE for indicating an inter-cell mTRP configuration,” and/or to activate/deactivate a cell – See 44:26-27.
Therefore, Claim 47 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and further in view of Centonza.
In sum, Claims 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and further in view of Centonza.
Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan as applied to Claim 48 above, and further in view of Go et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0204953 (hereinafter Go).
Regarding Claim 49, dependent from Claim 48, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan further teaches the user equipment of claim 48, wherein the user equipment is configured “to report L1 Measurements to the Target cells”, “the Target gNB-DU 314 allocates RACH resources including RACH preamble to the UE 310 according to the best beam/beam-group of the UE 310 . . . based on the L1 measurement report” – See Chandrashekar, [¶¶0062,0069, 0124] and Fig. 3. A person of ordinary skills in the art would know that beam group reporting is a parameter (groupBeamReporting) of the UE specific IE MIMO-ParametersPerBand in 3GPP Release 17 – See 3GPP TS 38.331:994-1005 (also describing TCI and mTRP related parameters configured to the UE). Although groupBeamReporting indicates maxNumberNonGroupBeamReporting, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan does not explicitly teach enabling the user equipment to report multiple reference signal groups in a single reporting instance.
Go teaches beam group reporting using a “first configuration information related to CSI reporting and second configuration information related to CSI resources, wherein based on group-based reporting being configured by the first configuration information, the second configuration information includes information on M (M is a natural number) CSI resource set associated with the first configuration information” – See [¶0009] and Fig. 8. Go further teaches that “in the Rel-17 NR FeMIMO standardization, it was agreed to proceed with beam reporting enhancement for simultaneous M-TRP transmission with multi-panel reception” whereby “a UE needs to report to a base station a CMR (DL RS or/and DL beam) combination that can be simultaneously received from different TRPs”– See [¶0233], and “proposes beam measurement and reporting method for a UE for M-TRP downlink transmission of a base station” using CSI-ReportConfig IEs which are RRC information elements – See [¶¶0246,0248] to “solve the problem that a base station could not confirm the properties of CMRs (e.g., CMRs from an S-TRP/CMRs from M-TRPs) within the reporting group” – See [¶0290]. The CSI-ReportConfig IE defines groupBasedBeamReporting, which may be enabled or disabled, and nrofReportedGroups indicating the number of reported resource groups per CSI-report, whereby “Value n1 means one resource group, n2 means 2 resource groups, and so on,” i.e., report multiple reference signal groups in a single reporting instance – See 3GPP Ts 38.331:567-570.
Thus, Go and Chandrashekar in view of Yuan each teaches configuring L1 measurements and 3GPP Release 17 group-based beam reporting at the UE. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the CSI-ReportConfig IE based group beam reporting and uplink resource allocation as taught in Go could have been added to the other configuration information encapsulated in the RRC Reconfiguration message(s) sent to the mTRP configured UE as taught by Chandrashekar in view of Yuan because they all use RRC reconfiguration messages. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of allowing beam-group reporting for multiple reference signal groups in a single reporting instance, as taught by Go in view of 3GPP Release 17 specifications.
Regarding Claim 50, dependent from Claim 49, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan further teaches the user equipment of claim 49, wherein each “TCI state may be associated with one downlink reference signal set (for example, an SSB and an aperiodic, periodic, or semi-persistent channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS)) for different QCL types” – See Yuan:[¶0092]. However, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan does not teach that each reference signal group includes multiple channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource indicators or synchronization signal block resource indicators (SSBRls).
Go further teaches that each reference signal group includes multiple channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource indicators or synchronization signal block resource indicators (SSBRls) (“In reference to FIG. 8, a terminal receives CSIResourceConfig IE including CSI-SSB-ResourceSetList including SSB resources used for BM from a base station” – See [¶0153] and Table 6 showing csi-RS-ResourceSetList and csi-SSB-ResourceSetList containing CSI-SSB-ResourceSetlds)
Therefore, Claim 50 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and further in view of Go.
Regarding Claim 51, dependent from Claim 50, Go further teaches wherein the user equipment is configured to select at least one CSI-RS and at least one synchronization signal block (SSB) from each CSI resource set (“[t]he CSI-RS resource set(s) or/and CSI-SSB resource set(s) may be configured/connected in a specific CSI resource setting (RRC IE CSI-ResourceConfig). And the CSI resource setting is configured/connected/related to a specific CSI reporting setting (RRC IE CSI-ReportConfig). Based on this, CSI-related quantities, Ll-RSRP-related quantities, or Ll-SINR-related quantities may be reported by a UE according to reportQuantity of a corresponding CSI reporting setting” – See [¶0231] and “when a UE reports a beam pair (or beam group) to a base station, it means that the UE reports [i.e., first selects] an index for a CSI-related resource (e.g., CSI-RS resources, SSB resources, etc.) and beam measurement information (e.g., L1-RSRP, L1-SIMR, etc.) for the CSI related resource to the base station” –See [¶0354])
wherein CSI-RS and SSB resources of each group can be received simultaneously by the user equipment (“For simultaneous M-TRP transmission with multi-panel reception between a base station and a UE, a UE needs to report to a base station a CMR (DL RS or/and DL beam) combination that can be simultaneously received from different TRPs” – See [¶0233], whereby, e.g., “during beam reporting for M-TRPs, each group can be interpreted as corresponding to each TRP” – See [¶0242], or “CMRs within a specific reporting group reported by a UE are composed of CMRs that can be simultaneously received. If beam reporting for M-TRPs is performed, a group may include CMR pairs from different TRPs. If N groups are reported, this may mean that N best pairs (i.e., best beam pairs) are reported” – See [¶0244]).
Therefore, Claim 51 is obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and further in view of Go.
In sum, Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and further in view of Go.
Claims 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan as applied to Amended Claim 31 above, and further in view of Bai et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0124739 (hereinafter Bai).
Regarding Claim 56, dependent from Amended Claim 31, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan teach the user equipment of claim 31, wherein, when the cell switch command includes multiple transmission configuration index states (“The network node 110 may maintain a set of activated TCI states for downlink shared channel transmissions and a set of activated TCI states for downlink control channel transmissions. The set of activated TCI states for downlink shared channel transmissions may correspond to beams that the network node 110 uses for downlink transmission on a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH)” and “The UE 120 may also maintain a set of activated TCI states for receiving the downlink shared channel transmissions” – See Yuan:[¶0093], wherein “the cell switching command may indicate multiple downlink TCI states for different downlink channels and indicate spatial relation information for different uplink channel, where each channel may have a beam indication” – See Yuan:[¶0107]).
However, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan does not teach that the user equipment is configured to autonomously select one of the transmission configuration index states based on layer-1 measurements, including selecting a transmission configuration index state for which the reported layer-1 measurement is higher than the others in the group.
Bai teaches a user equipment (UE) whereby “the UE 104 and the base station 180 may be respectively configured to control and coordinate autonomous updating by the UE of Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) states” – See [¶0058] and Fig. 1. Bai further teaches the UE autonomously selects one of the transmission configuration index states based on layer-1 measurements, including selecting a transmission configuration index state for which the reported layer-1 measurement is higher than the others in a group of reported measurements (“the UE may determine whether a reported RSRP of a reported beam is larger than a threshold and, if so, the UE may autonomously update a TCI state” – See [¶0085]; whereby “a TCI state may be updated by replacing a TCI state ID in a PDSCH TCI state list with a TCI state ID associated with the reported CSI-RS resource” – See [¶0095] and “the UE may report up to K beams ( corresponding to K TCI states) with RSRP” and “Rules may be set to specify which beam to autonomously update from the report,” e.g., the best Beam by RSRP measurement – See [¶0091], whereby RSRP is a L1 measurement as taught by Chandrashekar).
Thus, Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and Bai each teaches a UE receiving transmission configuration index states from a base station and reporting on the quality of the beams corresponding to those TCI states. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the UE configuration and behavior to autonomously update its TCI state based on a L1 measurement corresponding to one of the active TCI states being higher than others in the same measurement reporting group, as taught by Bai, could have been combined with the UE receiving first the cels switch command containing the active TCI states as taught by Chandrashekar in view of Yuan because in both cases the UE reports L1-measurements to a base station configuring the UE. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of allowing the UE to autonomously select a better beam for the downlink channel by changing to another active TCI state, thus reducing latency, at taught by Bai.
Therefore, Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chandrashekar in view of Yuan and further in view of Bai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhou et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0349131 describes methods, system, and devices for configuring supporting a layer 1 or layer 2 signaling (L1/L2) based inter-cell mobility;
Zhu et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0239423 discloses methods and apparatuses for beam management, measurement and reporting for inter-cell operation in a wireless communication system;
Go et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0380460, disclosing method and a device for transmitting or receiving channel state information in a wireless communication system for group-based beam reporting;
Ying et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2025/0125849, disclosing multi-beam measurement/reporting enhancements for L1/L2-centric inter-cell mobility wherein inter-cell multiple Transmission Reception Points (mTRP) is enabled;
Muruganathan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0205695, disclosing method, system, and apparatus for mDCI based mTRPs;
Futaki et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2025/0024342, disclosing conditional mobility in split system RAN architecture;
Da Silva et al., WIPO Patent Application No. 2022/243850, disclosing L1/L2 centric mobility via lightweight reconfiguration with synch;
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #120 Electronic, R2-2213332, Running CR to 38.300, published November 2022;
3GPP TSG RAN2 Meeting #121, R2-23000181, Title: MAC/RLC Reset and BWP Handling for LTM”, Source: Samsung, published February 16, 2023.
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 Chandrashekar teaches that the MAC CE command comprises “the candidate configuration index of the target cell” whereby the candidate configuration index has been agreed at the minimum in the MAC CE cell switch command, i.e., pointing to the RRC CellGroupConfig IE index/ID, in 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #120 Electronic, R2-2213332, Running CR to 38.300, November 2022 (hereinafter 3GPP R2-2213332) (defining L1/L2 LTM, and stating in § 9.2.3.x.2, that a MAC CE “contains at least a candidate configuration index” and “can indicate TCI state(s) (or other beam info) to be activate for the target Cell(s)” and/or “it should be possible to perform SCell activation/deactivation (amongst SCells associated with the candidate configuration) simultaneously with the LTM triggering MAC CE” – See 3GPP R2-2213332:7, further disclosing the agreement that “[t]he LTM candidate cell configuration ASN.1 structure comprises at least a CellGroupConfig IE and a configuration ID” and “A UE stores the reference configuration as a separate configuration” – See id.:14; stating also that “it should be possible to perform SCell activation/deactivation (amongst SCells associated with the candidate configuration) simultaneously with L1 L2 mobility trigger MAC CE” – See id.:13. Therefore, for a person of ordinary skills in the art, Chandrashekar teaches all limitations of Amended Claim 31.
2 Centonza includes a lot of references to 3GPP work related to L l/L2 centric inter-cell mobility as “justified in the Work Item Description (WID) RP-193133” for this specific area – See 4:2-3. For example, how the UE determines the UL/DL BWP to be used upon the execution of L1/L2 inter-cell mobility is discussed in 3GPP TSG RAN2 Meeting #121, R2-23000181, Title: MAC/RLC Reset and BWP Handling for LTM”, Source: Samsung, published February 16, 2023 (hereinafter 3GPP R2- R2-2300181), stating that “RRCReconfiguration includes L1/L2 inter-cell mobility candidate (target) configuration. The fields’ firstActiveUplinkBWP and firstActiveDownlinkBWP can be signaled in L1/L2 inter-cell mobility candidate (target) configuration. Upon receiving cell switch command, UE activates and uses the BWPs indicated by firstActiveUplinkBWP and firstActiveDownlinkBWP for the cell UE switches to” and proposes that “For LTM, BWP IDs of BWPs to use upon receiving cell change command can be signaled in MAC CE used for cell change” to prevent cases where “due to time interval between reception of RRCReconfiguration and actual cell switch command, network may like UE to operate on BWPs different than those indicated by firstActiveUplinkBWP and firstActiveDownlinkBWP” – See 3GPP R2- R2-2300181:2. Consequently, a MAC CE command may contain: mTRP configuration and L1/L2 cell switch command, e.g., when the cell switch command activates a cell of the mTRP target DU.
Prosecution Insights