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 .
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)(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, 6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2022/0322273 (Agnihotri et al.).
As to claims 1 and 11, Agnihotri teaches a base station (404, fig 4B) in a wireless communication system, the base station comprising (see figure 4B): a transceiver; and a controller coupled to the transceiver, and configured to: receive, from a location management function (LMF) entity,
a transmission reception point (TRP) information request message including at least one TRP identification (ID) (see step 610, fig 6, and paragraphs 114 and 115, information TRPs specified by TRP IDs requested by LMF in TRP INFORMATION REQUEST), and
transmit, to the LMF entity, a TRP information response message including first indication information indicating that a TRP corresponding to the at least one TRP ID is a moving cell (see step 620, fig 6, and paragraphs 115 and 117, TRP INFORMATION RESPONSE can indicate that the TRP is mobile).
As to claims 6 and 16, Agnihotri teaches a location management function (LMF) (406, fig 4C) entity in a wireless communication system, the LMF entity comprising (see figure 4C): a transceiver; and a controller coupled to the transceiver, and configured to:
transmit, to a base station, a transmission reception point (TRP) information request message including a TRP identification (ID) (see step 610, fig 6, and paragraphs 114 and 115, information TRPs specified by TRP IDs requested by LMF in TRP INFORMATION REQUEST), and
receive, from the base station, a TRP information response message including indication information indicating that a TRP corresponding to the TRP ID is a moving cell (see step 620, fig 6, and paragraphs 115 and 117, TRP INFORMATION RESPONSE can indicate that the TRP is mobile).
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.
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 2-4, 7-9, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnihotri in view of US 2023/0354250 (Shimoda et al.).
As to claims 2, 7, 12 and 17, what is lacking from Agnihotri is wherein the TRP information request message further includes at least one type of TRP information, and wherein the at least one type of TRP information includes a speed of the moving cell and time information of measurement for the TRP information.
In analogous art, Shimoda teaches an LMF sending a TRP INFORMATION REQUEST comprising information about the content of a TRP INFORMATION RESPONSE comprising both the speed of a moving cell, measurement information and time information (see Shimoda, paragraphs 208-220, 247-257 and 301-302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Agnihotri, so as to improve the quality of the information provided by the base station to the LMF.
As to claims 3, 8, 13 and 18, what is lacking from Agnihotri is wherein the TRP information request message further includes second indication information indicating a periodic report with period information, and wherein the TRP information response message is transmitted periodically based on the period information.
In analogous art, Shimoda teaches an LMF sending a TRP INFORMATION REQUEST comprising information inducing a periodic transmission of a TRP INFORMATION RESPONSE (see Shimoda, paragraphs 240, 247-257 and 301-302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Agnihotri, so as to improve the quality of the information provided by the base station to the LMF.
As to claims 4, 9, 14 and 19, what is lacking from Agnihotri is wherein the TRP information request message further includes second indication information indicating an event driven report with threshold information, and wherein the TRP information response message is transmitted based on the threshold information.
In analogous art, Shimoda teaches an LMF sending a TRP INFORMATION REQUEST comprising information inducing event based transmission of a TRP INFORMATION RESPONSE based on various thresholds (see Shimoda, paragraphs 241-257 and 301-302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Agnihotri, so as to improve the quality of the information provided by the base station to the LMF.
Claims 5, 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnihotri in view of Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claims 5 and 15, what is lacking from Agnihotri is wherein the controller is further configured to: in case that a cell is added or removed, transmit, to the LMF entity, the TRP information response message including information associated with the cell.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a base station managing multiple cells to add cells. This teaching in view of Agnihotri’s teachings would result in the TRP INFORMATION RESPONSE indicating TRP information corresponding to an added cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Agnihotri, so as to improve the quality of the information provided by the base station to the LMF.
As to claims 10 and 20, what is lacking from Agnihotri is wherein the controller is further configured to: in case that a cell is added or removed to the base station, receiving, from the base station, the TRP information response message including information associated with the cell.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a base station managing multiple cells to add cells. This teaching in view of Agnihotri’s teachings would result in the TRP INFORMATION RESPONSE indicating TRP information corresponding to an added cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Agnihotri, so as to improve the quality of the information provided by the base station to the LMF
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0212160 (Chen et al.). US 2024/0147407 (Zorghu et al.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641