DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to Election/Restriction made to an Application No. 18/374,067 filed on 01/22/2026 in which claims 11-12 are amended and claims 16-20 are canceled. Accordingly, Claims 1-15 are currently pending for examination.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 09/28/2023 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 09/28/2023 and 10/30/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14, and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 16, 17, and 18 recite acronyms such as “IAB, PCell, PSCell, PDU, BAP, DCI, CU, and MT” respectively. For clarity, it is suggested to spell out the specified acronyms in at least the first time it is mentioned in the claim.
Claim 1 recite “cell(s)” and “condition(s)” in line 7 respectively. As per MPEP § 608.01(m), reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appears in the claims. For clarity, it is suggested to rewrite said words accordingly.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the operator “/” in said claims respectively. For clarity, it is suggested to change the operator “/” with a positively recited word or non-operator sign. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the first indication” in line 2. In order to avoid antecedent basis, it is suggested to amend to -- a first indication --.
Claims 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 recite a pronoun “its, there, and it” in said claims respectively. For clarity, it is suggested to change a pronoun word “its”, “there”, and “it” to a positively recited non-pronoun word.
In Claim 6, it is suggested to delete the word “that” after the word “wherein” in line 1.
In Claim 7, it is suggested to delete the word “that” after the word “wherein” in line 1.
Claim 11 recites “S beams” and “T beams” in line 6 and in line 10 respectively. For clarity, it is suggested to define what the terms “S” and “T” are in said claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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)(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 1-5, 8-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0159530A1) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus for conditional reconfiguration, applicable to at least one of a terminal equipment served by the first IAB-node (see FIG. 1 and 2; see ¶ [0053], a wireless device/UE), the apparatus comprising:
a memory (see FIG. 2; see ¶ [0070], one or more memories); and
a processor coupled to the memory (see FIG. 2; see ¶ [0070], one or more processors) and configured to:
select one of first cell(s) fulfilling conditional reconfiguration condition(s) from conditional reconfiguration candidate cells as a second cell (see FIG. 10-12; see ¶ [0151] [0159], the UE evaluates conditional handover (CHO) execution condition and if at least one target cell satisfies the CHO execution condition); and
initiate conditional reconfiguration execution on the second cell (see FIG. 10-12; see ¶ [0151] [0159], the UE initiates access to the target cell using the target cell).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein
the conditional reconfiguration condition comprises at least one of the following conditions that:
a radio link failure of a link with its parent IAB-node is detected (see ¶ [0152] [0159] [0178], the wireless device detects the radio link failure (RLF)).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses wherein
the notification of a radio link failure and/or the first indication is/are received via a PDU control BAP; or the notification of a radio link failure and/or the first indication is/are received via a system message; or the notification of a radio link failure and/or the first indication is/are received via a paging message (Claim 2 recites multiple functionalities by using “at least one of” in a selective way. Since the Examiner has shown the teaching of at least one functionality, the claim limitation(s) is/are still met which dependent upon said claim).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein,
at least one of the notification of a radio link failure, the first indication and an update indication of the system message is comprised in a short message of paging message and is indicated by DCI (Claim 2 recites multiple functionalities by using “at least one of” in a selective way. Since the Examiner has shown the teaching of at least one functionality, the claim limitation(s) is/are still met which dependent upon said claim).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses wherein,
the notification of a radio link failure comprises at least one of a Type-4 RLF (radio link failure) notification, a Type-2 RLF (radio link failure) notification and a Type-3 RLF (radio link failure) notification (Claim 2 recites multiple functionalities by using “at least one of” in a selective way. Since the Examiner has shown the teaching of at least one functionality, the claim limitation(s) is/are still met which dependent upon said claim).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses wherein
the processor is further configured to:
when there exists the first cell fulfilling the conditional reconfiguration condition, take first cell as the second cell (see ¶ [0151] [0154], the UE initiates access to the target cell, performs cell selection and cell #1 is selected); and
when there exist at least two first cells fulfilling the conditional reconfiguration condition, determine the first cell as the second cell (see ¶ [0151] [0154], it is assumed that CHO candidate cells #1 to #4 are configured by the mobility command upon failure (e.g., RLF), the UE performs cell selection and cell #1 is selected).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
select the first cell from the at least two first cells and take it as the second cell (see ¶ [0151] [0154], it is assumed that CHO candidate cells #1 to #4 are configured by the mobility command upon failure (e.g., RLF), the UE performs cell selection and cell #1 is selected).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
select the first cell fulfilling at least one of the following conditions from the at least two first cells and take it as the second cell:
when a failure of a radio link with its parent IAB-node is detected, the first cell is not a cell of the parent IAB-node (see ¶ [0159] [0178], the wireless device detects the radio link failure (RLF) and see ¶ [0142-43], set of candidate cells).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to apply stored second cell configuration on the selected second cell (see ¶ [0256], apply the stored condRRCReconfig (i.e., apply a target cell configuration associated to the selected cell)).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses wherein, the terminal equipment to apply the apparatus for conditional reconfiguration (see ¶ [0252] [0256], the wireless device shall apply the stored condRRCReconfig).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses wherein, the conditional reconfiguration candidate cells comprise conditional handover candidate cells (see ¶ [0151] [0176], the target cell configurations associated to one or more target cells may be condRRCReconfig field included in the ConditionalReconfiguration IE).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of CHEN et al. (US 2023/0388894 A1) hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding claim 6, Kim does not explicitly disclose an available buffer size.
However, Chen discloses wherein that a second indication of flow control from the parent IAB-node is received comprises that: a second indication based on an available buffer size (see ¶ [0046], the flow control feedback from a parent IAB node may indicate an available buffer size).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide an available buffer size as taught by Chen, in the system of Kim, so that it would provide to reroute for packets subject to those poor conditions by determining the available buffer size to the threshold (Chen: see ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of Kim and Chen discloses wherein that a second indication based on an available buffer size is received comprises that: the second indication based on an available buffer size is received and available buffer size denoted by information on the available buffer size is greater than a fourth threshold (Chen: see ¶ [0045-46], detect/determine that the available buffer size is equal or larger than the configured occupied buffer size threshold and the flow control feedback from a parent IAB node may indicate an available buffer size).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Deenoo et al. (US 2021/0168678 A1) hereinafter “Deenoo”.
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not explicitly disclose the first cell with best quality of a beam.
However, Deenoo discloses select the first cell fulfilling a second condition from the at least two first cells and take it as the second cell,
the second condition comprising at least one of the following: the first cell with best quality of a beam (see ¶ [0110], the WTRU may be configured to choose a cell having the best beam quality from among the candidate cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the first cell with best quality of a beam as taught by Deenoo, in the system of Kim, so that it would provide to improve the reliability of control signaling (Deenoo: see ¶ [0084]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
select the first cell fulfilling a first condition and a second condition from the at least two first cells and take it as the second cell,
the first condition comprising at least one of the following that: when a failure of a radio link with its parent IAB-node is detected, the first cell is not a cell of the parent IAB-node (see ¶ [0159] [0178], the wireless device detects the radio link failure (RLF) and see ¶ [0142-43], set of candidate cells).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the first cell with best quality of a beam.
However, Deenoo discloses the second condition comprising at least one of the following: the first cell with best quality of a beam (see ¶ [0110], the WTRU may be configured to choose a cell having the best beam quality from among the candidate cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the first cell with best quality of a beam as taught by Deenoo, in the system of Kim, so that it would provide to improve the reliability of control signaling (Deenoo: see ¶ [0084]).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462