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
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed December 16, 2025. Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-13, and 22-29 are pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 23, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bengtsson et al. (US 2016/0302142, “Bengtsson”).
Regarding claim 1, Bengtsson teaches a user equipment (UE) (FIG. 1 - user equipment 106) configured for wireless communication, in the UE comprising: a communication interface; and one or more processors coupled to the communication interface ([0032]), the one or more processors being configured to cause the UE to:
receive mobility state information ([0015] “The mobility information may be received from a base station of the cell of the plurality of cells which broadcasts the mobility information. The mobility information may comprise for example information on a current velocity of a movement of the base station or the cell, information on a current direction of a movement of the base station or the cell, or information on a current position of the base station”) for a network node (FIG. 1 base stations 101-104. [0034] “the user equipment 106 receives broadcasted mobility information from the base stations 101-104.”);
perform prioritization of the network node based on the mobility state information for the network node ([0012] “when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… in case for example the user equipment is moving very fast and no accompanying mobile cells are available, a large cell may be selected to avoid frequent handovers, although smaller cells providing higher signal intensity than the large cell may be available”. It is understood in case a small cell has the priority if it moves the same direction as the user equipment. And if no cell accompanying the fast moving user equipment, a large cell has the priority over a small cell);
perform cell reselection to establish a connection with the network node based on based on prioritization ([0008] “the user equipment may collect the received cell size information and may perform the cell selection on its own” [0012] “Based on the mobility information of the user equipment and the cells or base stations of the communication network in combination with the cell sizes, a comprehensive cell selection may be performed. For example, when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… in case for example the user equipment is moving very fast and no accompanying mobile cells are available, a large cell may be selected to avoid frequent handovers, although smaller cells providing higher signal intensity than the large cell may be available”)
Regarding claim 2, Bengtsson teaches claim 1 and further teaches wherein: the network node comprises a target cell (FIG. 1 base stations 101-104).
Regarding claim 3, Bengtsson teaches claim 1 and further teaches wherein to receive the mobility state information, the one or more processors are configured cause the UE to receive at least one of a synchronization signal block (SSB), a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) signal, a remaining system information (RMSI) signal, a random access channel (RACH) message 2, or a RACH message 4 ([0015] “The mobility information may be received from a base station of the cell of the plurality of cells which broadcasts the mobility information”).
Regarding claim 5, Bengtsson teaches claim 1 and further teaches wherein the mobility state information for the network node is one of: an implicit indication based on one or more resources used to transmit one or more signals including the mobility state information; or an explicit indication included in the one or more signals ([0015] “The mobility information may be received from a base station of the cell of the plurality of cells which broadcasts the mobility information. The mobility information may comprise for example information on a current velocity of a movement of the base station or the cell, information on a current direction of a movement of the base station or the cell, or information on a current position of the base station”).
Regarding claim 11, Bengtsson teaches claim 6 and further teaches wherein the mobility state information provides an indication of at least one of: a level of mobility for the network node, the level of mobility being one of stationary mobility, low-speed mobility, medium-speed mobility, or high-speed mobility; or a change or transition from one mobility state to another for the network node ([0034] “The mobility information may comprise for example for the base station 101 that the base station 101 is a stationary base station, and for base station 104 that the base station 104 is a mobile base station moving in the direction of arrow 109 with a certain speed.”)
Regarding claim 23, Bengtsson teaches claim 6 and further teaches wherein the network node is an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (FIG. 1 – mobile base stations 104. Mobile base stations are referred to as mobile repeater relay which indicate that data is relay via a backhaul connection).
Regarding claim 27, Bengtsson teaches a method for wireless communication, the method comprising:
receiving, at a user equipment (UE), mobility state information for a network node ([0015] “The mobility information may be received from a base station of the cell of the plurality of cells which broadcasts the mobility information. The mobility information may comprise for example information on a current velocity of a movement of the base station or the cell, information on a current direction of a movement of the base station or the cell, or information on a current position of the base station”) for a network node (FIG. 1 base stations 101-104. [0034] “the user equipment 106 receives broadcasted mobility information from the base stations 101-104.”);
performing prioritization of the network node based on the mobility state information for the network node ([0012] “when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… in case for example the user equipment is moving very fast and no accompanying mobile cells are available, a large cell may be selected to avoid frequent handovers, although smaller cells providing higher signal intensity than the large cell may be available”. It is understood in case a small cell has the priority if it moves the same direction as the user equipment. And if no cell accompanying the fast moving user equipment, a large cell has the priority over a small cell);
performing, at the UE cell reselection to establishing a connection with the network node based on the prioritization ([0012] “when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… in case for example the user equipment is moving very fast and no accompanying mobile cells are available, a large cell may be selected to avoid frequent handovers, although smaller cells providing higher signal intensity than the large cell may be available”. It is understood in case a small cell has the priority if it moves the same direction as the user equipment. And if no cell accompanying the fast moving user equipment, a large cell has the priority over a small cell).
Regarding claim 29, Bengtsson teaches claim 27 and further teaches wherein the UE is a user equipment (UE) (FIG. 1 - user equipment 106), and wherein the network node is an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (FIG. 1 – mobile base stations 104. Mobile base stations are referred to as mobile repeater relay which indicate that data is relay via a backhaul connection).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson in view of Chen (US 2018/0092157).
Regarding claim 9, Bengtsson teaches claim 1 but fails to teach wherein to receive the mobility state information, the one or more processors are configured cause the UE to receive at least one of: a random access channel (RACH) message 1 including a RACH preamble ID representing the mobility state information; a RACH message 3 including the mobility state information; or information from resources used to transmit the RACH message 1 indicating the mobility state information.
However, Chen teaches wherein to receive the mobility state information, the one or more processors are configured cause the UE to receive at least one of: a random access channel (RACH) message 1 including a RACH preamble ID representing the mobility state information; a RACH message 3 including the mobility state information; or information from resources used to transmit the RACH message 1 indicating the mobility state information ([0048] “The small data indication and/or mobility state may be transmitted in msg3 (e.g. RRC connection Resume Request) or other messages after receiving a Preamble Response.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein to receive the mobility state information, the one or more processors are configured cause the UE to receive at least one of: a random access channel (RACH) message 1 including a RACH preamble ID representing the mobility state information; a RACH message 3 including the mobility state information; or information from resources used to transmit the RACH message 1 indicating the mobility state information, as taught by Chen in Bengtsson, to reduce signaling overhead.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson in view of Sen et al. (US 2017/0086134, “Sen”).
Regarding claim 12, Bengtsson teaches claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to determine a mobility state of the UE relative to the network node, wherein: the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether the UE has low mobility relative to the network node or high mobility relative to the network node, wherein when the UE has high mobility relative to the network node, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether the UE is moving towards or away from the network node; and
the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether to establish the connection with the network node based on whether the UE has the low mobility relative to the network node, the UE has the high mobility relative to the network node, and whether the UE is moving towards or away from the network node.
Sen teaches
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to determine a mobility state of the UE relative to the network node ([0018] “mobility state may be determined relative to an access point based on time-of-flight (ToF) information.” [0021] “velocity of the device 510 relative to the AP may be determined”), wherein: the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether the UE has low mobility relative to the network node or high mobility relative to the network node, wherein when the UE has high mobility relative to the network node ([0023] “a periodicity with which to perform a channel scan may be determined based on the velocity of device 510. For example, if the velocity is below a first threshold value, it may be determined to not perform a channel scan unless signal strength of the AP associated with device 510 falls below a signal strength threshold value. On the other hand, if the determined velocity is above the first threshold value, the periodicity may be set to a value proportional to the determined velocity of the device. For example, the higher the velocity is, the higher the more frequently device 510 can perform a channel scan”) the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether the UE is moving towards or away from the network node ([0027] “available APs that device 510 is headed towards may be identified. For example, APs 530 and 540 may be identified as available APs in this regard. AP 520 would not be identified because device 510 is moving away from AP 520.” [0021] “A positive velocity would indicate velocity toward the AP while a negative velocity would indicate velocity away from the AP.”); and
the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether to establish the connection with the network node based on whether the UE has the low mobility relative to the network node, the UE has the high mobility relative to the network node, and whether the UE is moving towards or away from the network node ([0027] “available APs that device 510 is headed towards may be identified. For example, APs 530 and 540 may be identified as available APs in this regard. AP 520 would not be identified because device 510 is moving away from AP 520.” [0028] “the AP identified in block 440 may be selected and associated with. Referring to environment 500, AP 530 would likely be selected using this selection technique because AP 530 is closer to device 510 and thus probably would have a higher signal strength than AP 540 and, thus, a higher projected throughput. [0030] “an AP may be selected (from the APs identified in block 420) and associated with, where the AP has a lowest signal strength value above the minimum value. Referring to environment 500, assuming AP 540 has a signal strength above the minimum value, AP 540 would likely be selected using this selection technique because AP 540 is farther from device 510 and would thus likely have a weaker signal strength than AP 530. The reason selection of AP 540 may minimize the number of handoffs is because device 510 would probably be able to stay associated with AP 540 for a longer period of time than with AP 530 due to the mobility direction of device 510.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to determine a mobility state of the UE relative to the network node, wherein: the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether the UE has low mobility relative to the network node or high mobility relative to the network node, wherein when the UE has high mobility relative to the network node, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether the UE is moving towards or away from the network node; and the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether to establish the connection with the network node based on whether the UE has the low mobility relative to the network node, the UE has the high mobility relative to the network node, and whether the UE is moving towards or away from the network node, as taught by Sen in Bengtsson, to allow a base station being selected according to workload types.
Regarding claim 13, Bengtsson teaches claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to determine one or more signal metrics associated with the network node and one or more variations in the signal metrics associated with the network node, wherein to determine whether to establish the connection with the network node, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to determine whether to establish the connection with the network node based on the one or more signal metrics associated with the network node and the one or more variations in the signal metrics associated with the network node.
Sen teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to determine one or more signal metrics associated with the network node ([0024] “available AP having a highest signal strength may be selected for association. The signal strength of each available AP may be determined by device 510 via its wireless card”) and one or more variations in the signal metrics associated with the network node ([0021] “the ToF is increasing (e.g., see FIG. 6), it may be determined that the device 510 is heading away from the AR Otherwise if the ToF is decreasing, it may be determined that the device 510 is approaching the AP”), wherein to determine whether to establish the connection with the network node, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to determine whether to establish the connection with the network node based on the one or more signal metrics associated with the network node and the one or more variations in the signal metrics associated with the network node ([0021] “the ToF is increasing (e.g., see FIG. 6), it may be determined that the device 510 is heading away from the AR Otherwise if the ToF is decreasing, it may be determined that the device 510 is approaching the AP.” [0027] “available APs that device 510 is headed towards may be identified. For example, APs 530 and 540 may be identified as available APs in this regard. AP 520 would not be identified because device 510 is moving away from AP 520.” [0024] “available AP having a highest signal strength may be selected for association. The signal strength of each available AP may be determined by device 510 via its wireless card”) .
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to determine a mobility state of the UE relative to the network node, wherein: the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether the UE has low mobility relative to the network node or high mobility relative to the network node, wherein when the UE has high mobility relative to the network node, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether the UE is moving towards or away from the network node; and the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine whether to establish the connection with the network node based on whether the UE has the low mobility relative to the network node, the UE has the high mobility relative to the network node, and whether the UE is moving towards or away from the network node, as taught by Sen in Bengtsson, to allow a base station being selected according to workload types.
Claims 22, 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson
Regarding claim 22, Bengtsson teaches claim 1 and further teaches wherein to receive the mobility state information for the network node, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to receive a {remaining} system information {(RMSI)} signal ([0038] “The cell size information as well as the mobility information may be transmitted as part of a system information block (SIB) signaling”).
Bengtsson does not particularly discloses remaining system information (RMSI) signal. However, the Examiner submits RMSI is also referred to as SIB1 which is part of SIB signaling. In other words, Bengtsson is open to all kinds of SIB being used to indicate cell size information and the mobility information, including SIB1.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein to receive the mobility state information for the network node, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to receive a remaining system information (RMSI) signal, Bengtsson, to allow mobility state to be transmitted as detailed system information that is accessible without having to send a request.
Regarding claim 24, Bengtsson teaches a user equipment (UE) (FIG. 1 - user equipment 106) configured for wireless communication, the UE comprising: a communication interface; and one or more processors coupled to the communication interface ([0032]), the one or more processors being configured to:
receive, in a {remaining} system information {(RMSI)} signal, mobility state information for a network node ([0015] “The mobility information may be received from a base station of the cell of the plurality of cells which broadcasts the mobility information. The mobility information may comprise for example information on a current velocity of a movement of the base station or the cell, information on a current direction of a movement of the base station or the cell, or information on a current position of the base station”. FIG. 1 base stations 101-104. [0034] “the user equipment 106 receives broadcasted mobility information from the base stations 101-104.”); and
perform prioritization of the network node based on the mobility state information for the network node ([0012] “when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… in case for example the user equipment is moving very fast and no accompanying mobile cells are available, a large cell may be selected to avoid frequent handovers, although smaller cells providing higher signal intensity than the large cell may be available”. It is understood in case a small cell has the priority if it moves the same direction as the user equipment. And if no cell accompanying the fast moving user equipment, a large cell has the priority over a small cell);
perform cell reselection to establish a connection with the network node based on prioritization ([0008] “the user equipment may collect the received cell size information and may perform the cell selection on its own” [0012] “Based on the mobility information of the user equipment and the cells or base stations of the communication network in combination with the cell sizes, a comprehensive cell selection may be performed. For example, when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… in case for example the user equipment is moving very fast and no accompanying mobile cells are available, a large cell may be selected to avoid frequent handovers, although smaller cells providing higher signal intensity than the large cell may be available”).
Bengtsson does not particularly discloses remaining system information (RMSI) signal. However, the Examiner submits RMSI is also referred to as SIB1 which is part of SIB signaling. In other words, Bengtsson is open to all kinds of SIB being used to indicate cell size information and the mobility information, including SIB1.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to receive in a remaining system information (RMSI) signal, Bengtsson, to allow mobility state to be transmitted as detailed system information that is accessible without having to send a request.
Regarding claim 25, Bengtsson teaches claim 24, and further teaches wherein: the network node comprises a target cell (FIG.1 base stations 101-104).
Regarding claim 26, Bengtsson teaches claim 24, and further teaches wherein the network node is an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (FIG. 1 – mobile base stations 104. Mobile base stations are referred to as mobile repeater relay which indicate that data is relay via a backhaul connection).
Regarding claim 28, Bengtsson teaches claim 27 and further teaches wherein receiving the mobility state information for the network node comprises receiving a {remaining} system information {(RMSI)} signal ([0038] “The cell size information as well as the mobility information may be transmitted as part of a system information block (SIB) signaling”).
Bengtsson does not particularly discloses remaining system information (RMSI) signal. However, the Examiner submits RMSI is also referred to as SIB1 which is part of SIB signaling. In other words, Bengtsson is open to all kinds of SIB being used to indicate cell size information and the mobility information, including SIB1.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature receiving a remaining system information (RMSI) signal, Bengtsson, to allow mobility state to be transmitted as detailed system information that is accessible without having to send a request.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 24 and 27, Applicant argues Bengtsson does not teach “UE configured to perform cell reselection to establish a connection with the network node based on based on prioritization” because “Bengtsson describes … Based on this transmission, the base station “may select in step 307a new cell”” (Remarks, page 7)
The Examiners submits, base station performing cell selection is only one option. Bengtsson also teaches “the user equipment may collect the received cell size information and may perform the cell selection on its own” (see [0008]).
Further Bengtsson also teaches scenarios in which small cell or large cell may have the priority over the other one (“Based on the mobility information of the user equipment and the cells or base stations of the communication network in combination with the cell sizes, a comprehensive cell selection may be performed. For example, when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… when the user equipment is moving and a small cell is in reach of the user equipment and moving approximately in the same direction, the user equipment may select this cell for communication services… in case for example the user equipment is moving very fast and no accompanying mobile cells are available, a large cell may be selected to avoid frequent handovers, although smaller cells providing higher signal intensity than the large cell may be available” [0012]).
Therefore, the Examiner submit Bengtsson teaches all limitations of claim 1, 24 and 27.
Arguments against dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9, 11-13, and 22-23, 25-26 and 28-29 rely on the argument above, accordingly, the same responses apply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brockmann et al. (US 10,999,790) teaches cell selection by an UE.
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 QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/QUOC THAI N VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642