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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/7/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 4/7/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 15 are amended, and claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered but are moot based upon the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 7-10, 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12563466 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in pending application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 12563466 B2 with obvious wording variation. For example, compare claim 1 of pending application with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12563466 B2, they both recite, Regarding claim 1,
A wireless terminal of a cellular telecommunication system (A wireless terminal of a cellular telecommunication system), the wireless terminal comprising (the wireless terminal comprising):
receiver circuitry configured to receive, from a serving cell, one or more instances of neighboring cell mobility information (receiver circuitry configured to receive, from the serving cell, at least one message comprising), each instance of the one or more instances of the neighboring cell mobility information (neighboring cell relative mobility information indicating a mobility state of the neighboring cell relative to the serving cell) being associated with an identity of a corresponding neighboring cell (an identity of a neighboring cell); and
processor circuitry configured to (processor circuitry configured to):
make a determination, based on each instance of the neighboring cell mobility information, of a mobility state of the corresponding neighboring cell (neighboring cell relative mobility information indicating a mobility state of the neighboring cell relative to the serving cell), and
perform, based on the determination, a cell reselection procedure to reselect the corresponding neighboring cell (reselecting the neighboring cell based on the mobility state of the neighboring cell relative to the serving cell).
Further, analyzing and comparing dependent claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 15 of the pending application with claims 2-3, 7-10, 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12563466 B2 it was found that they recite the same limitation with wording changes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abedini et al. (US 20210306840 A1 and Abedini hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Abedini teaches a wireless terminal (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0072-0073; a child node of the set 510 of child nodes may include a UE) of a cellular telecommunication system (Paragraphs 0033 and 0034; wide area network such as Internet or a cellular network), the wireless terminal comprising:
receiver circuitry (Paragraph 0034; UE may communicate with a base station, another device, or some other entity. Figure 2 and Paragraph 0041; UE 120 comprises antenna 252a through 252r may receive the downlink signal from base station) configured to receive, from a serving cell, one or more instances of neighboring cell mobility information (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0074-0076; receive, from wireless serving node 505, at least one message 540, 545, 550. Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0074-0076 and 0093; the mobility history information is associated with a relative mobility between the wireless serving node 505 and one or more reported cells 525), each instance of the one or more instances of the neighboring cell mobility information being associated with an identity of a corresponding neighboring cell (Paragraphs 0075-0077; the mobility state information may indicate a cell ID associated with the reported cells); and
processor circuitry (Paragraph 0034; the UE may include processor components and memory components. Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0041 and 0044; UE comprises a transmit processor and a receive processor) configured to:
make a determination, based on each instance of the neighboring cell mobility information, of a mobility state of the corresponding neighboring cell (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0075; motion state of the reported cell 525 may indicate whether the reported cell 525 is (or was) mobile or stationary. A level of mobility of the reported cell 525 may indicate a speed of motion of the reported cell 525. In some aspects, a level of mobility may indicate whether the reported cell 525 is, or was, moving at one of a set of defined speeds or speed ranges), and
perform, based on the determination, a cell reselection procedure to reselect the corresponding neighboring cell (Paragraph 0070; a child node and/or other network nodes may use planned and/or predicted mobility state information to more efficiently allocate resources, perform handovers, perform cell reselections, and/or the like).
Regarding claim 8, independent claim 8 recite similar features as claim 1, therefore are rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding independent claim 1. Further, Abedini teaches an access node of a cellular telecommunication system, the access node (Figure 2) communicating with a wireless terminal (Figure 1; macro base station communicates with UE), the access node comprising:
processor circuitry (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0045; base station 110 comprises a transmit processor 220 and receive processor 230); and
transmitter circuitry (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0045 and 0048; base station comprises antenna 234 for communicating with UE).
Regarding claim 15, independent claim 15 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore are rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding independent claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Abedini teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as described above. Further, Abedini teaches wherein the mobility state indicates a movement status of at least one transmission and reception point (TRP) that serves the corresponding neighboring cell (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0074; the serving node 505 may report mobility history information associated with any number of reported cells. Reported cells may include mobile cells, stationary cells, cells that the wireless serving node 505 has visited, neighboring cells that have been detected by a visited cell and/or the wireless serving node 505, and/or the like).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Abedini teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as described above. Further, Abedini teaches wherein the mobility state indicates a movement speed of at least one transmission and reception point (TRP) (Paragraph 0075; the mobility state information may indicate a level of mobility of the reported cell 525 may indicate a speed of motion of the reported cell 525).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Abedini teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as described above. Further, Abedini teaches wherein the mobility state indicates a movement direction of at least one transmission and reception point (TRP) (Paragraphs 0070 and 0082; the mobility state information associated with the wireless serving node may include planned mobility state information. the planned mobility state information may indicate motion direction information associated with the cell 535 provided by the wireless node 505).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Abedini teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as described above. Further, Abedini teaches wherein the neighboring cell mobility information is included in one or more system information blocks (SIBs) (Paragraphs 0083 and 0084; the wireless serving node 505 may transmit, and one or more of the set 510 of child nodes may receive, an indication that mobility history information is available. The indication may be carried in a system information block (SIB). In some aspects, the SIB may be a SIB 1).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Abedini teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as described above. Further, Abedini teaches wherein the neighboring cell mobility information is included in a signal dedicated to the wireless terminal (Paragraph 0084; the wireless serving node 505 may transmit, and one or more of the set 510 of child nodes may receive, the mobility history information. In some aspects, the SIB may include a new dedicated SIB. In some aspects, the mobility history information may be carried in a radio resource control (RRC) message. Paragraph 0087; the mobility history information may be carried in a SIB and the indication of the change to the mobility history information may be carried in a dedicated system information (SI) update. Paragraph 0128; the extended SI update indication comprises a dedicated short message).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Abedini teaches all of the limitations of claims 6 and 13, as described above. Further, Abedini teaches wherein a radio resource control (RRC) message is used for the signal dedicated to the wireless terminal (Paragraph 0084; the wireless serving node 505 may transmit, and one or more of the set 510 of child nodes may receive, the mobility history information. In some aspects, the mobility history information may be carried in a radio resource control (RRC) message).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bengtsson et al. (US 20160302142 A1) discloses selecting a cell of a wireless cellular communication network based on mobility information of target cell.
Harris et al. (US 8335188 B1) discloses mobile station receives neighbor list from base station and decides how to process the received neighbor list.
Zisimopoulos et al. (US 20210084603 A1) discloses a mobile relay generates and broadcast synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel block (SSB) using synchronization signal that is different than a stationary base station, when UE receive the SSB determines that the SSB is from a mobile relay based on information comprised in the SSB.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/ Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights