DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that was filed on 5 Jan 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 3 Jul 2023 and 5 Apr 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 Mar 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the anticipation rejections, the Reply finds that Kim fails to teach the “receiving” limitation of claim 51 because “Kim does not mention any other information can be transmitted with the handover configuration information in a message.” Reply, 11. This argument seems to imply that Kim fails to teach “information for causing the terminal device to perform a handover to a target cell” (i.e. the other information now required by the amendment to the “receiving” step of claim 51). However, Kim teaches the UE receiving conditions that will trigger the handover to the target gNB. Kim, ¶¶101, 141-142. The conditions of Kim constitute the “information for causing the terminal device to perform a handover” in the claimed invention.
The Reply also asserts Kim fails to teach the “storing” limitation of claim 51. Reply, 11. The Reply seems to imply that Kim fails to teach a “trigger condition” for storing the successful handover information. Ibid. The Examiner contends that each “time point” in Kim constitutes a “trigger condition.” Kim, ¶110-113.
All other arguments are moot in light of the anticipation rejection being withdrawn and the obviousness rejection rendered below.
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.
Claims 51, 53-58, 60-63, 65-70, 72-76, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kim (US 20230262538) in view of Ericsson (NPL 3 on IDS, dated 3 July 2023).
Regarding claims 51 and 75, Kim teaches a method for a terminal device (Kim, e.g. UE 1005), comprising at least one memory; and at least one processor couple to the at least one memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the method comprising:
receiving, from a first network device, a message including a configuration for the terminal device to report successful handover information and information for causing the terminal device to perform a handover to a target cell (Kim, figure 10 (step 1020) or figure 11 (step 1105) and Kim, ¶¶101, 109 or ¶¶141-142 – UE receives handover configuration information from source BS, where the information includes conditions that must be satisfied to trigger a successful handover and when a particular target cell meets the condition, handover is triggered),
storing the successful handover information in a variable for a successful handover report in a case where a trigger condition for storing the successful handover information is satisfied based on the information included in the configuration. Kim, ¶¶110-113 or ¶¶136 and 138 (terminal stores information related to a handover, which is considered to be successful); see also id., figure 11 (in steps 1155 and 1175, sending the successful handover report).
Kim does not explicitly teach “wherein the configuration comprises information associated with a timer, the timer comprising T310 or T312.” However, Ericsson teaches a UE storing up to N successful handover entries. Ericsson, pg. 5 (section 2.2.2.1 – 3rd proposal). The UE may use a variable, varSuccHOReport, to store the parameters of a successful handover. Id. (“varSuccHOReport is introduced to store the parameters for successful HO report”). Ericsson also teaches timers involved with successful handover reporting. Ericsson, pgs. 7-13. In some instances, the successful handover report is triggered while either T310 or T312 are running. Id. at pg. 8 (section 2.2.3.2 – Cat-b-Proposal 14’s e and f). In other instances, the successful handover report includes a value of a T310 or T312 timer. Id. at pg. 10 (both Huawei’s proposal and Docomo’s proposal). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the timer information, taught by Ericsson, when configuring a successful handover report, in order to provide the most recent RLM information [i.e. T310 and T312 are RLM timers] prior to the event that triggers the handover report. Id., pgs. 6-7 (Qualcomm’s proposal). Alternatively, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the T310 or T312 timer, taught by Ericsson, to trigger the sending of a successful handover report, as taught by Kim, in order to limit the number of reports that a UE would generate. Id. at pg. 8, line 4.
Regarding claim 63, it is directed to the first network device, which performs the inverse operation of the UE in claim 51. As a result, claim 63 is rendered obvious by the same teachings relied upon for rejecting claim 51.
Regarding claims 53 and 65, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches wherein the message is received via a radio resource control (RRC) message. Kim, figure 10 (RRCReconfiguration message 1020).
Regarding claims 54 and 66, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches wherein the RRC message is an RRCReconfiguration message. Kim, figure 10 (RRCReconfiguration message 1020).
Regarding claims 56 and 68, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches discarding the variable for the successful handover report after setting the successful handover report in a message for the first network device. Kim, ¶¶130 and 149 (terminal removes the stored successful HO report after a predetermined time); see also id., figures 11 and 12 (HO reporting being sent, which necessitates its information being “set” in a message, before being deleted).
Regarding claims 57 and 69, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches discarding the successful handover report 48 hours after storing the successful handover information. Ericsson, pg. 5 (section 2.2.2.1 – “UE can clear/discard the successful handover report after 48 hours since the last recorded successful handover entry”).
Regarding claims 58 and 70, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches releasing the configuration upon a successful handover to a target cell. Kim, ¶102 (terminal removes handover configuration information when handover has been successfully completed).
Regarding claims 60 and 72, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches sending . . . a third message including availability of the successful handover report. Kim, ¶149 and figure 12 (RRC message in step 1215 includes availability indicator of successful HO report) or Kim, ¶129 and figure 10 (in step 1075, UE transmits a RRC message to “target cell or a different cell” indicating that a successful HO report is available); Ericsson, pg.s 5-6 (sections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 – “indication of the availability of the successful handover report” in an RRC message). The combination of Kim and Ericsson does not explicitly teach the “different cell,” which receives the RRC message with the availability indicator, being the source cell. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to send the availability indicator, taught by Kim, to the source cell, as taught by the combination of Kim and Ericsson, in order to inform all neighboring cells of the availability of the data collected by the UE during its handover.
Regarding claims 61 and 73, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches wherein the third message is an RRC message. Kim, ¶129 (RRCReconfigurationComplete or RRCReestablishmentComplete message includes the availability indicator); Ericsson, pg. 5 (“UE can indicate the availability of the successful handover report in RRCSetupComplete, RRCResumeComplete, and RRCRestablishment complete message”).
Regarding claims 62 and 74, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches wherein the third message is RRCReconfigurationComplete message, RRCSetupComplete message, RRCResumeComplete message, or RRCReestablishmentComplete message. Kim, ¶129 (RRCReconfigurationComplete or RRCReestablishmentComplete message includes the availability indicator); Ericsson, pg. 5 (“UE can indicate the availability of the successful handover report in RRCSetupComplete, RRCResumeComplete, and RRCRestablishment complete message”).
Regarding claim 76, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches wherein the first network device is a source network device. Kim, figure 10 (source gNB 1010).
Regarding claim 78, the combination of Kim and Ericsson also teaches receiving the message from a second network device. Kim, ¶152 (source gNB receives handover request acknowledgement, which includes handover configuration information, from target gNB).
Claims 59 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Ericsson (both of record) in view of Lee (US 20170374574).
Regarding claims 59 and 71, Kim teaches the methods of claims 51 and 63 and removing configuration information. Kim, ¶102 (terminal removes handover configuration information when handover has been successfully completed). Kim does not explicitly teach removing the report configuration “during an RRC reestablishment procedure.” However, Lee teaches a UE logging measurements in accordance with a reporting configuration when an RRC connection is being reestablished. Lee, figure 12 (steps s1210 and s1222 – logging results based on configuration); Lee, ¶153 (RRC connection is reestablished in figure 12). The reporting configuration is ultimately deleted. Lee, ¶¶136, 138. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to remove configuration, as taught by Kim, during a RRC reestablishment procedure, as taught by Lee, in order to conserve memory resource by purging a configuration after an RRC connection has been used to report the information generated based on the configuration.
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ericsson (both of record) and further in view of Wu (US 20230422135).
Regarding claim 77, the combination of Kim and Ericsson teaches the method of claim 51 and the UE receiving a message from the source eNB for reporting a successful handover report (Kim, figure 10 (step 1020) or figure 11 (step 1105)), but does not explicitly teach “wherein the message includes a first message and a second message, the first message including the configuration for the terminal device to report successful handover information and the second message including the information for causing the terminal device to perform a handover to a target cell of a second network device, and the first message is received before the second message.” However, Wu teaches a UE receiving a handover configuration from a source BS. Wu, figure 6 and ¶139 (step 611). And also teaches a UE receiving a handover command from a source BS. Id., figure 6 and ¶141 (step 613). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the source gNB, taught by the combination of Kim and Ericsson, to send both a handover report configuration and handover command as separate messages, as taught by Wu, in order to base the handover command on the measurements results obtained by the UE. Wu, ¶¶139-140 (in figure 6, UE performs measurements in step 612 [i.e. in between the configuration and command message from the source BS]).
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ericsson (both of record) and further in view of Parichehrehteroujeni (US 20220141725)
Regarding claim 79, the combination of Kim and Ericsson teaches the method of claim 78, but does not teach the source eNB “receiving the successful handover report from the second network device.” However, Parichehrehteroujeni teaches a source node receiving a successful handover report from a target node. Parichehrehteroujeni, ¶105. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to inform the source node, as taught by Parichehrehteroujeni, of the successful handover report, taught by the combination of Kim and Ericsson, in order to enable the source node to address the problem that led to the handover. Parichehrehteroujeni, ¶105 (e.g. reconfigure link monitoring, re-distribute beams, or change mobility threshold between beams).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and fax number is 571-270-8514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for authorizing unsecure communication). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights