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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Da Silva et al. (WO 2022/240334) (See IDS).
For claim 1, Da Silva teaches: A master node apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the master node apparatus to (see at least fig. 6-7, UE and network node may comprise processor/memory for communication):
connect to a user equipment and at least one secondary node in a multi-connectivity network (see at least page 1, fig. 1, master node MN may be implemented in dual connectivity MR-DC for communications with UE and secondary nodes SN); and
send a message comprising an information element to the user equipment (see at least page 20 line 15-16, UE may receive message configuring measurement event e.g. RRCReconfiguration), wherein the information element indicates whether:
a primary cell connected to the master node apparatus should be used as a special cell for determining a cell change execution condition for a target primary secondary cell (see at least page 20 line 32-page 21 line 16, RRCReconfiguration may comprise a Boolean field pscell-cpc-r17; “If this field is set to TRUE the UE shall use the PSCell as the SpCell instead of the PCell for events CondEVent A3 and/or CondEvent A5 for CPC.”, thus a FALSE may indicate the UE to use PCell for events A3/A5. See at least page 5 line 25-28, A3/A5 comprise PSCell change execution conditions, and page 11, line 11-12, MN may be associated with master cell group MCG comprising PCell); or
a primary secondary cell connected to one of the at least one secondary node and identified by an identifier in the information element should be used as the special cell for determining the cell change execution condition for the target primary secondary cell (see at least page 20 line 32-page 21 line 16, RRCReconfiguration may comprise a Boolean field; “If this field is set to TRUE the UE shall use the PSCell as the SpCell instead of the PCell for events CondEVent A3 and/or CondEvent A5 for CPC.” See at least page 28, line 25-28, reconfigurationWithSync (nested in RRCReconfiguration) in condRRCReconfig may comprise physical cell identity of applicable cell, and page 1, line 15-22, SN may be associated with secondary cell group SCG comprising PSCell).
For claim 2, Di Silva teaches claim 1, Da Silva further teaches: wherein the multi-connectivity network comprises a dual connectivity network (see at least page 1, fig. 1, master node MN may be implemented in dual connectivity MR-DC).
For claim 3, Di Silva teaches claim 1, Da Silva further teaches: wherein the information element indicates that the primary cell connected to the master node apparatus should be used as a special cell for determining the cell change execution condition for the target primary secondary cell when the information element is empty (see at least page 26 line 17-18, “If pscell-cpc-r17 is present, the SpCell is the PSCell”, thus PSCell may be default PCell if pscell-cpc-r17 is absent).
For claim 4, Di Silva teaches claim 1, Da Silva further teaches: wherein the identifier comprises a physical cell identifier (see at least page 28, line 25-28, reconfigurationWithSync (nested in RRCReconfiguration) in condRRCReconfig may comprise physical cell identity of applicable cell).
For claim 6, Di Silva teaches claim 1, Da Silva further teaches: wherein the cell change execution condition comprises an A3 event condition or an A5 event condition (see at least page 5 line 25-28, A3/A5 comprise PSCell change execution conditions).
For claim 7, Di Silva teaches claim 1, Da Silva further teaches: wherein the message comprises a Radio Resource Configuration reconfiguration message (see at least page 20 line 15-16, UE may receive message configuring measurement event e.g. RRCReconfiguration).
Claim 8 recites a method substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 9 recites a method substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 10 recites a method substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 11 recites a method substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 4 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 13 recites a method substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 6 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
For claim 14, Da Silva teaches: An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to (see at least fig. 6-7, UE and network node may comprise processor/memory for communication):
connect to a master node and at least one secondary node in a multi-connectivity network (see at least page 1, fig. 1, master node MN may be implemented in dual connectivity MR-DC for communications with UE and secondary nodes SN); and
receive, from the master node, a message comprising an information element (see at least page 20 line 15-16, UE may receive message configuring measurement event e.g. RRCReconfiguration), wherein the information element indicates whether:
a primary cell connected to the master node should be used as a special cell for determining a cell change execution condition for a target primary secondary cell (see at least page 20 line 32-page 21 line 16, RRCReconfiguration may comprise a Boolean field pscell-cpc-r17; “If this field is set to TRUE the UE shall use the PSCell as the SpCell instead of the PCell for events CondEVent A3 and/or CondEvent A5 for CPC.”, thus a FALSE may indicate the UE to use PCell for events A3/A5. See at least page 5 line 25-28, A3/A5 comprise PSCell change execution conditions, and page 11, line 11-12, MN may be associated with master cell group MCG comprising PCell); or
a primary secondary cell connected to one of the at least one secondary node and identified by an identifier in the information element should be used as the special cell for determining the cell change execution condition for the target primary secondary cell (see at least page 20 line 32-page 21 line 16, RRCReconfiguration may comprise a Boolean field; “If this field is set to TRUE the UE shall use the PSCell as the SpCell instead of the PCell for events CondEVent A3 and/or CondEvent A5 for CPC.” See at least page 28, line 25-28, reconfigurationWithSync (nested in RRCReconfiguration) in condRRCReconfig may comprise physical cell identity of applicable cell, and page 1, line 15-22, SN may be associated with secondary cell group SCG comprising PSCell); and
determine the cell change execution condition using the special cell (see at least page 4 line 15-18, A3/A5 may be evaluated based on cell measurements).
Claim 15 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 16 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 17 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 4 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 19 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 6 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 20 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 7 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
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.
Claim 5, 12, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al. (WO 2022/240334) in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0099926) (see IDS).
For claim 5, Da Silva teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein sending the message comprising the information element comprises sending the information when capability signalling has been received from the user equipment. Chen from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0188, 0111-0113, fig. 8, UE may transmit capability report to MN indicating PSCell reconfiguration support before receiving RRC reconfiguration). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Chen to the system of claim 1, so the UE may send capability report indicating reconfiguration support before receiving RRCReconfiguration, as suggested by Chen. The motivation would have been to enhance configuration by indicating UE support for cell reconfiguration capabilities to the network (Chen 0188).
Claim 12 recites a method substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 5 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 18 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the apparatus of claim 5 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hwang et al. (US 2023/0124607) discloses an apparatus and method for conditional mobility on secondary node initiated by master node in wireless communication systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. 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.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights