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 .
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements dated 04/11/2025 and 06/26/2025 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 30 limitations “means for detecting radio link failure (RLF) or handover failure” and “means for performing, based at least in part on the RLF or the handover failure” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specification [0057] discloses “In some aspects, a UE (e.g., the UE 120) includes means for detecting a link failure; and/or means for performing, based at least in part on the link failure, one or more of LTM or conditional handover based at least in part on a prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery. The means for the UE to perform operations described herein may include, for example, one or more of communication manager 140, antenna 252, modem 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, controller/processor 280, or memory 282”. The specification does not expressly recite what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function and does not clearly link the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 15-16, 19-24, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN et al, US 20240284284 hereafter JIN in view of Latheef et al, US 20240114403 hereafter Latheef.
As for claim 1, JIN discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Jin, [0234] Referring to FIG. 13, the terminal includes a radio frequency (RF) processor 1310, a baseband processor 1320, a storage unit 1330, and a controller 1340.), configured to cause the UE to:
perform one or more of layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) or conditional handover based at least in part on a prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery (JIN, [0114], in a situation where the terminal may concurrently receive multiple handover messages, it may be necessary to define a signal to which priority is to be given. In one way, LTM may be applied first, and in another way, existing layer 3 handover may be processed first.)
JIN does not explicitly disclose detect a Link failure; and perform, based at least in part on the Link failure, a conditional handover.
Latheef discloses detect a link failure (Latheef, [0253], The wireless device 2020 may detect a radio link failure (RLF) 2125 in a source base station); and perform, based at least in part on the link failure, a conditional handover. (Latheef, [0253], The wireless device 2105 may perform a cell selection procedure 2130, for example, based on detecting the RLF. The wireless device 2105 may select a cell 2135. The wireless device 2105 may perform CHO execution to the selected cell, based on the selected cell being a CHO candidate)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of JIN with detect a Link failure; and perform, based at least in part on the Link failure, a conditional handover as taught by Latheef to provide improved candidate cell configuration. (Latheef, [0307])
As for claim 2, Latheef discloses wherein the Link failure is associated with a radio Link failure (RLF) or a handover failure (Latheef, [0253], The wireless device 2105 may perform a cell selection procedure 2130, based on detecting the radio Link failure (RLF)).
As for claim 3, JIN discloses wherein the one or more processors, to perform one or more of LTM or conditional handover, are further configured to cause the UE to: attempt to perform the LTM; and perform the conditional handover based at least in part on the LTM being unsuccessful (JIN, FIG. 8, [0160]-[0163], In operation 893, the terminal 801 may perform RRC re-establishment when the LTM handover fails),
wherein the LTM is attempted to be performed prior to the conditional handover based at least in part on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration. (JIN, [0154], [0167]-[0168], The LTM is attempted in step 860 which is prior to the conditional/L3 HO command at step 897. [0113] The existing layer 3 handover technology used in various embodiments of the disclosure may all be applied to various handover technologies (conditional handover (CHO))
As for claim 4, JIN discloses the one or more processors, to perform one or more of LTM or conditional handover, are further configured to cause the UE to: attempt to perform the LTM; and perform a legacy layer 3 (L3) reestablishment based at least in part on the LTM being unsuccessful (JIN, FIG. 8, [0160]-[0163], In operation 893, the terminal 801 may perform RRC re-establishment when the LTM handover fails), wherein the LTM is attempted to be performed prior to the legacy L3 reestablishment based at least in part on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration (JIN, [0163] If the fallback to the source cell cannot be completely performed, the terminal may enter an RRC re-establishment procedure to reselect connectable cells. If a cell found via cell reselection is one of the LTM candidate cells, the terminal may attempt to make a connection by applying a preconfigured RRC configuration for the cell.)
As for claim 5, JIN discloses the one or more processors, to perform one or more of LTM or conditional handover, are further configured to cause the UE to: attempt to perform the conditional handover (JIN, FIG. 9, [0176], [0179], When the L3/conditional handover indication is transferred to the terminal 901 via the RRC message, the terminal 901 may start a handover procedure in operation 960 and drive a timer T304 for handover.); and perform the LTM based at least in part on the conditional handover being unsuccessful (JIN, FIG. 9, [0180], In operation 975, the terminal 901 may fail in the handover to the target cell. [0183] Source cell DU 902 having received the information may initiate an LTM operation procedure by reapplying previously stored LTM configuration information.), wherein the conditional handover is attempted to be performed prior to the LTM based at least in part on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration (JIN, FIG. 9, [0180]-[0181], the L3/conditional handover is attempted prior to the LTM based on the RRC config. [0183] Source cell DU 902 having received the information of the L3/conditional handover failure may initiate an LTM operation procedure by reapplying previously stored LTM configuration information.).
As for claim 7, JIN discloses perform the LTM; and perform a reestablishment by executing the conditional handover based at least in part on a failure associated with the LTM. (JIN, FIG. 8, [0160]-[0163], In operation 893, the terminal 801 may perform RRC re-establishment when the LTM handover fails)
As for claim 9, JIN discloses perform the LTM; and perform a reestablishment or a recovery using another LTM based at least in part on a failure associated with the LTM. (JIN, [0139]-[0141], the terminal may fail in the LTM handover to the target cell. When LTM fails, the terminal 701 may perform fallback to the previous source cell 702 and attempt to make a connection. If the fallback to the source cell 702 cannot be completely performed, the terminal 701 may enter an RRC re-establishment procedure to reselect connectable cells.)
As for claim 15, JIN discloses the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on a handover interruption time. (JIN, [0160] In operation 890, the terminal 801 may fail in the LTM handover to the target cell. Reasons for the LTM handover failure may include expiration of a timer for the LTM handover or expiration of an existing T304 timer, a failure of random access to the target cell to which LTM handover is performed, etc.)
As for claim 16, Latheef discloses the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on a quality of service (QOS) of traffic on a source cell. (Latheef, [0106], The wireless device may measure received signal levels (e.g., reference signal levels, reference signal received power, reference signal received quality, received signal strength indicator, etc.) based on one or more signals sent from a serving cell and neighboring cells. The wireless device may report these measurements to a serving base station (e.g., the base station currently serving the wireless device). The serving base station of the wireless device may request a handover to a cell of one of the neighboring base stations, for example, based on the reported measurements.)
As for claim 19, JIN discloses prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on a presence of an intra-central-unit (intra-CU) scenario or an inter-central-unit (inter-CU) scenario. (JIN, [0108], [0127], [0145], in various embodiments of the disclosure, not only an intra-CU scenario but also an inter-CU scenario is considered.)
As for claim 20, JIN discloses the one or more processors, to perform one or more of LTM or conditional handover, are further configured to cause the UE to: perform at least one of one or more LTM recovery attempts or one or more conditional handover recovery attempts based at least in part on multiple recovery attempts being permitted at different cells. (JIN, [0139]-[0141], the terminal may fail in the LTM handover to the target cell. When LTM fails, the terminal 701 may perform fallback to the previous source cell 702 and attempt to make a connection. If the fallback to the source cell 702 cannot be completely performed, the terminal 701 may enter an RRC re-establishment procedure to reselect connectable cells.)
As for claim 21, JIN discloses:
A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (Jin, [0234] Referring to FIG. 13, the terminal includes a radio frequency (RF) processor 1310, a baseband processor 1320, a storage unit 1330, and a controller 1340.), comprising: perform one or more of layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) or conditional handover based at least in part on a prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery (JIN, [0114], in a situation where the terminal may concurrently receive multiple handover messages, it may be necessary to define a signal to which priority is to be given. In one way, LTM may be applied first, and in another way, existing layer 3 handover may be processed first.)
JIN does not explicitly disclose detect a Link failure; and perform, based at least in part on the Link failure, a conditional handover.
Latheef discloses detect a link failure (Latheef, [0253], The wireless device 2020 may detect a radio link failure (RLF) 2125 in a source base station); and perform, based at least in part on the link failure, a conditional handover. (Latheef, [0253], The wireless device 2105 may perform a cell selection procedure 2130, for example, based on detecting the RLF. The wireless device 2105 may select a cell 2135. The wireless device 2105 may perform CHO execution to the selected cell, based on the selected cell being a CHO candidate)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of JIN with detect a Link failure; and perform, based at least in part on the Link failure, a conditional handover as taught by Latheef to provide improved candidate cell configuration. (Latheef, [0307])
As for claim 22, JIN discloses wherein the one or more processors, to perform one or more of LTM or conditional handover, are further configured to cause the UE to: attempt to perform the LTM; and perform the conditional handover based at least in part on the LTM being unsuccessful (JIN, FIG. 8, [0160]-[0163], In operation 893, the terminal 801 may perform RRC re-establishment when the LTM handover fails),
wherein the LTM is attempted to be performed prior to the conditional handover based at least in part on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration. (JIN, [0154], [0167]-[0168], The LTM is attempted in step 860 which is prior to the conditional/L3 HO command at step 897. [0113] The existing layer 3 handover technology used in various embodiments of the disclosure may all be applied to various handover technologies (conditional handover (CHO))
As for claim 23, JIN discloses performing one or more of LTM or conditional handover further comprises: attempting to perform the conditional handover (JIN, FIG. 9, [0176], [0179], When the L3/conditional handover indication is transferred to the terminal 901 via the RRC message, the terminal 901 may start a handover procedure in operation 960 and drive a timer T304 for handover.); and performing the LTM based at least in part on the conditional handover being unsuccessful, wherein the conditional handover is attempted to be performed prior to the LTM based at least in part on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration (JIN, FIG. 9, [0113], [0180]-[0181], the L3/conditional handover is attempted prior to the LTM based on the RRC config. [0183] Source cell DU 902 having received the information of the L3/conditional handover failure may initiate an LTM operation procedure by reapplying previously stored LTM configuration information.)
As for claim 24, JIN discloses performing one or more of LTM or conditional handover further comprises: performing the LTM; and performing a reestablishment by executing the conditional handover based at least in part on a failure associated with the LTM (JIN, [0139]-[0141], the terminal may fail in the LTM handover to the target cell. When LTM fails, the terminal 701 may perform fallback to the previous source cell 702 and attempt to make a connection. If the fallback to the source cell 702 cannot be completely performed, the terminal 701 may enter an RRC re-establishment procedure to reselect connectable cells.)
As for claim 29, JIN discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication (Jin, [0234] Referring to FIG. 13, the terminal includes a radio frequency (RF) processor 1310, a baseband processor 1320, a storage unit 1330, and a controller 1340.), the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to:
perform one or more of layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) or conditional handover based at least in part on a prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery (JIN, [0114], in a situation where the terminal may concurrently receive multiple handover messages, it may be necessary to define a signal to which priority is to be given. In one way, LTM may be applied first, and in another way, existing layer 3 handover may be processed first.)
JIN does not explicitly disclose detect a Link failure; and perform, based at least in part on the Link failure, a conditional handover.
Latheef discloses detect a link failure (Latheef, [0253], The wireless device 2020 may detect a radio link failure (RLF) 2125 in a source base station); and perform, based at least in part on the link failure, a conditional handover. (Latheef, [0253], The wireless device 2105 may perform a cell selection procedure 2130, for example, based on detecting the RLF. The wireless device 2105 may select a cell 2135. The wireless device 2105 may perform CHO execution to the selected cell, based on the selected cell being a CHO candidate)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of JIN with detect a Link failure; and perform, based at least in part on the Link failure, a conditional handover as taught by Latheef to provide improved candidate cell configuration. (Latheef, [0307])
As for claim 30, JIN discloses An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: means for detecting handover failure (JIN, [0139] In operation 775, the terminal may fail in the LTM handover to the target cell. Reasons for the LTM handover failure may include expiration of a timer for the LTM handover or expiration of an existing T304 timer, a failure of random access to the target cell to which LTM handover is performed); and means for performing, based at least in part on the handover failure (JIN, FIG. 9, [0180]-[0181], the L3/conditional handover is attempted prior to the LTM based on the RRC config. [0183] Source cell DU 902 having received the information of the L3/conditional handover failure may initiate an LTM operation procedure by reapplying previously stored LTM configuration information.), one or more of layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) or conditional handover based at least in part on a prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery (JIN, [0114], in a situation where the terminal may concurrently receive multiple handover messages, it may be necessary to define a signal to which priority is to be given. In one way, LTM may be applied first, and in another way, existing layer 3 handover may be processed first.)
5. Claim(s) 6, 8 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN et al, US 20240284284 in view of Latheef et al, US 20240114403 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Awada et al, US 2025/0056343 hereafter Awada.
As for claim 6, the combination of JIN and Latheef does not explicitly disclose the one or more processors, to perform one or more of LTM or conditional handover, are further configured to cause the UE to: attempt to perform the conditional handover; and perform a legacy layer 3 (L3) reestablishment based at least in part on the conditional handover being unsuccessful, wherein the conditional handover is attempted to be performed prior to the legacy L3 reestablishment based at least in part on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration.
However, Awada discloses the one or more processors, to perform one or more of LTM or conditional handover (Awada, [0143] According to an example embodiment of the second exemplary aspect, the mobility failure occurred in association with a baseline handover (BHO), BHO failure, conditional handover (CHO), CHO failure, or a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover or DAPS failure.), are further configured to cause the UE to: attempt to perform the conditional handover ; and perform a legacy layer 3 (L3) reestablishment based at least in part on the conditional handover being unsuccessful (Awada, [0093], [0097], [0105], [0143], [0223], According to an example embodiment of the second exemplary aspect, the mobility failure occurred in association with a baseline handover (BHO), BHO failure, conditional handover (CHO), CHO failure, or a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover or DAPS failure.), wherein the conditional handover is attempted to be performed prior to the legacy L3 reestablishment based at least in part on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration. (Awada, [0216]-[0217], [0223], In a step 5, due to the occurred mobility failure associated with a handover, re-establishment of radio link of the UE 540 takes place.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of JIN and Latheef with the one or more processors, to perform one or more of LTM or conditional handover, are further configured to cause the UE to: attempt to perform the conditional handover; and perform a legacy layer 3 (L3) reestablishment based at least in part on the conditional handover being unsuccessful, wherein the conditional handover is attempted to be performed prior to the legacy L3 reestablishment based at least in part on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration as taught by Awada to reduce mobility failures (Awada, [0005])
As for claims 8 and 25, the combination of JIN and Latheef does not explicitly disclose perform the conditional handover; and perform a reestablishment by executing the LTM based at least in part on a failure (Awada, [0093], [0097], [0105], [0143], [0223], According to an example embodiment of the second exemplary aspect, the mobility failure occurred in association with a baseline handover (BHO), BHO failure, conditional handover (CHO), CHO failure, or a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover or DAPS failure.) associated with the conditional handover (Awada, [0216]-[0217], [0223], In a step 5, due to the occurred mobility failure associated with a handover, re-establishment of radio link of the UE 540 takes place.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of JIN and Latheef with perform the conditional handover; and perform a reestablishment by executing the LTM based at least in part on a failure associated with the conditional handover as taught by Awada to reduce mobility failures (Awada, [0005])
6. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN et al, US 20240284284 in view of Latheef et al, US 20240114403 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jokela et al, US 2021/0051542.
As for claim 10, the combination of JIN and Latheef does not explicitly disclose perform the conditional handover; and perform a reestablishment or a recovery using another conditional handover based at least in part on a failure associated with the conditional handover.
Jokela discloses perform the conditional handover (Jokela, FIG. 1, 112, [0025], conditional access can be attempted to a target cell ); and perform a reestablishment or a recovery using another conditional handover based at least in part on a failure associated with the conditional handover (Jokela, [0034], [0025] upon detecting a failed access to the target for which the access condition has triggered at 115, attempting at 120 to access a candidate cell among suitable candidate cells that have been previously configured for conditional handover.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of JIN and Latheef with perform the conditional handover; and perform a reestablishment or a recovery using another conditional handover based at least in part on a failure associated with the conditional handover as taught by Jokela to avoid radio link failures due to a missed handover command. (Jokela, [0002])
7. Claim(s) 11-13 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN et al, US 20240284284 in view of Latheef et al, US 20240114403 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DAMNJANOVIC et al, US 2023/0139950 hereafter DAMNJANOVIC.
As for claim 11, the combination of JIN and Latheef does not explicitly disclose
the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on channel qualities of candidate special cells (SpCells) associated with LTM and channel qualities of candidate SpCells associated with conditional handover.
However, DAMNJANOVIC discloses the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on channel qualities (DAMNJANOVIC, [0091], the configuration information may include an indication of one or more execution conditions associated with the conditional handover procedure…if a measurement value (e.g., an RSRP measurement value or an RSRQ measurement value) of the signal transmitted by the candidate base station or the candidate cell satisfies a threshold indicated by the execution condition, or is greater than a measurement value of a signal transmitted by the source base station 605 by a threshold amount (e.g., a threshold amount that is indicated by the execution condition), then the execution condition may be met or satisfied.), of candidate special cells (SpCells) associated with LTM and channel qualities of candidate SpCells associated with conditional handover (DAMNJANOVIC, [0086], The UE 120 may be enabled to select (or add) a special cell and/or one or more SCells, associated with the first candidate base station 610, as explained in more detail elsewhere herein (e.g., at, or near, a time when the conditional handover is triggered)…The first candidate base station 610 may determine or identify one or more thresholds or conditions for selecting a candidate cell, from the set of candidate cells, as a special cell or an SCell (e.g., as part of performing a conditional handover with the first candidate base station 610).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of JIN and Latheef with wherein the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on channel qualities of candidate special cells (SpCells) associated with LTM and channel qualities of candidate SpCells associated with conditional handover as taught by DAMNJANOVIC to provide improved handover (DAMNJANOVIC, [0079]).
As for claim 12, DAMNJANOVIC discloses the channel qualities of candidate SpCells associated with LTM and the channel qualities of candidate SpCells (DAMNJANOVIC, [0086], The UE 120 may be enabled to select (or add) a special cell and/or one or more SCells, associated with the first candidate base station 610, as explained in more detail elsewhere herein (e.g., at, or near, a time when the conditional handover is triggered)…The first candidate base station 610 may determine or identify one or more thresholds or conditions for selecting a candidate cell, from the set of candidate cells, as a special cell or an SCell (e.g., as part of performing a conditional handover with the first candidate base station 610) associated with conditional handover are based at least in part on one or more of: channel qualities of beams or numbers of beams having channel qualities that satisfy a threshold. (DAMNJANOVIC, [0091], the configuration information may include an indication of one or more execution conditions associated with the conditional handover procedure…if a measurement value (e.g., an RSRP measurement value or an RSRQ measurement value) of the signal transmitted by the candidate base station or the candidate cell satisfies a threshold indicated by the execution condition, or is greater than a measurement value of a signal transmitted by the source base station 605 by a threshold amount (e.g., a threshold amount that is indicated by the execution condition), then the execution condition may be met or satisfied.)
As for claims 13 and 27, JIN discloses wherein the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on one or more of: channel qualities, numbers of secondary cells (SCells), or numbers of beams, associated with candidate cell groups configured for LTM and candidate cell groups configured for conditional handover (JIN, [0110], [0117], [0126]-[1027], [0133], [0151], [0219], if the terminal is able to receive an RRC message from the source cell even while performing LTM handover to the target cell (if equipped with corresponding capability) in operation 1120, the terminal may perform a handover operation in response to the received layer 3 handover request. The operation may be performed by one of the following methods. [0220] Performing a high priority handover operation (LTM or layer 3 handover: priority is specified in the standard or provided via signaling);…The RRC configuration information (CellGroupConfig 1, . . . , CellGroupConfig N) applied when L1/L2-based handover is performed may be transferred in one of a cell level structure, a cell group level structure, and an RRC message level structure.)
The combination of JIN and Latheef does not explicitly disclose wherein the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on one or more of: channel qualities, numbers of secondary cells (SCells), or numbers of beams, associated with candidate cell groups configured for LTM and candidate cell groups configured for conditional handover.
However, DAMNJANOVIC discloses wherein the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on one or more of: channel qualities (DAMNJANOVIC, [0091], the configuration information may include an indication of one or more execution conditions associated with the conditional handover procedure…if a measurement value (e.g., an RSRP measurement value or an RSRQ measurement value) of the signal transmitted by the candidate base station or the candidate cell satisfies a threshold indicated by the execution condition, or is greater than a measurement value of a signal transmitted by the source base station 605 by a threshold amount (e.g., a threshold amount that is indicated by the execution condition), then the execution condition may be met or satisfied.), numbers of secondary cells (SCells), associated with candidate cell groups configured for LTM and candidate cell groups configured for conditional handover (DAMNJANOVIC, [0086], The UE 120 may be enabled to select (or add) a special cell and/or one or more SCells, associated with the first candidate base station 610, as explained in more detail elsewhere herein (e.g., at, or near, a time when the conditional handover is triggered)…The first candidate base station 610 may determine or identify one or more thresholds or conditions for selecting a candidate cell, from the set of candidate cells, as a special cell or an SCell (e.g., as part of performing a conditional handover with the first candidate base station 610).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of JIN and Latheef with wherein the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on one or more of: channel qualities, numbers of secondary cells (SCells), or numbers of beams, associated with candidate cell groups configured for LTM and candidate cell groups configured for conditional handover as taught by DAMNJANOVIC to provide improved handover (DAMNJANOVIC, [0079]).
8. Claim(s) 17 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN et al, US 20240284284 in view of Latheef et al, US 20240114403 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2025/037584 A1 hereafter FUJISHIRO.
As for claims 17 and 28, the combination of JIN and Latheef does not explicitly disclose the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on an artificial intelligence or machine learning (AI/ML) prediction of one or more of: a handover success probability, an expected throughput, or a handover interruption time.
However, FUJISHIRO discloses the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on an artificial intelligence or machine learning (AI/ML) prediction of one or more of: a handover success probability, an expected throughput, or a handover interruption time (FUJISHIRO, page 10, paragraphs 5-7, The inference data input to the AI/ML model may include at least one of the bandwidth of each cell, the cell size (or transmission power) of each cell, and the radio parameters of each cell. Here, by using the bandwidth as the inference data, the expected throughput (service quality) can be estimated. Therefore, for example, mobility control such as preferentially selecting a candidate cell having the same system bandwidth as the current serving cell becomes easier. By using the cell size (cell transmission power) as the inference data, it is possible to prioritize large cells over small cells to increase the HO success rate, or to prioritize small cells (when moving at low speed) or large cells (when moving at high speed) depending on the UE movement speed. The inference result data output by the AI/ML model is information indicating the possibility of cell switching to each candidate cell and/or information indicating the timing of cell switching. The information indicating the possibility of cell switching may be a probability value of cell switching to each candidate cell. Page 12 paragraph 3 after attempting a handover (access to a target cell), UE100 may store log information regarding whether the handover was successful or not. The log information is failure log information indicating that the handover failed, or success log information indicating that the handover was successful. The log information may include model inference information regarding whether model inference was applied to the handover. In step S22, UE100 may transmit a notification including the log information to gNB200. This allows gNB200 (network 5) to use the log information to perform autonomous optimization in network 5 (for example, optimization of an AI/ML model to be provided to UE100 in the future)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of the teachings of JIN and Latheef with the prioritization of LTM and conditional handover during failure recovery is based at least in part on an artificial intelligence or machine learning (AI/ML) prediction of one or more of: a handover success probability, an expected throughput, or a handover interruption time as taught by FUJISHIRO to provide improved handover. (FUJISHIRO, page 16, paragraph 6)
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 14, 18 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhou et al, US 2024/0098613 discloses [0448] For at least some wireless devices, conflicts between a CHO PCell switching procedure and other HO and/or switching procedures may occur, for example, if the switching procedures occur in parallel. Conflicts in PCell switching may result in increased latency, poor mobility, and/or a reduction in energy savings. For a conflict involving a layer 1 triggered PCell switching and a layer 3 HO or CHO, for example, the wireless device may prioritize the layer 1 triggered PCell switching.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENEE HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-7196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached at (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 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.
JENEE HOLLAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/JENEE HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469