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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 3 April 2026, in view of the amendments with respect to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicant’s specification does not provide support for a network device “determining, based on the first field in the first information, whether to change the serving cell”. ¶¶6, 61, and 75 as well as figure 3 of the applicant’s specification clearly show that only the terminal device performs “determining, based on the first field in the first information, whether to change the serving cell” and not the network device.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson 3GPP R2-2105999 “On L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility” (hereinafter referred to as “Ericsson”) in view of Matsumura et al. US 2024/0306053 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Matsumura”). Note: Ericsson was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 13 January 2025.
As to claim 1, Ericsson teaches a communication method performed by a terminal device or a component of a terminal device, comprising:
receiving, by the terminal device, second information, wherein the second information comprises configuration information of one or more candidate target cells (page 8: before receiving MAC CE indicating the switch, receive RRC configuration configuring other cell SSB/PCI and respective TCI states);
receiving first information, wherein the first information indicates to activate a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of a candidate target cell, the first information is media access control control element (MAC CE) signaling (page 8: receive, via MAC CE, to activate a TCI associated to a PCI other than the serving cell); and
activating the first TCI state of the candidate target cell based on the first information (page 8: use MAC CE to activate the TCI state thereby switching serving cells).
Although Ericsson teaches “A communication method…(MAC CE) signaling; and activating…first information,” Ericsson does not explicitly disclose “the MAC CE…serving cell” and “determining, based…the serving cell”.
However, Matsumura teaches the MAC CE signaling includes a first field indicating whether to change a serving cell (¶¶186 and 270: MAC CE includes a field indicating whether to change the serving cell); and
determining, based on the first field in the first information, whether to change the serving cell (¶¶186 and 270-271: judge, based on the field in the MAC CE, whether to change the serving cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Ericsson by including “the MAC CE…serving cell” and “determining, based…the serving cell” as taught by Matsumura because it provides Ericsson’s method with the enhanced capability achieving more efficient beam management (Matsumura, ¶¶5-9, 186-187, and 270-271).
As to claim 2, Ericsson in view of Matsumura teaches the method according to claim 1. Ericsson further teaches wherein the MAC CE signaling comprises a cell identifier field that indicates the candidate target cell (page 8: receive, via MAC CE, to activate a TCI associated to a PCI other than the serving cell).
As to claim 3, Ericsson in view of Matsumura teaches the method according to claim 2. Ericsson further teaches wherein there is an association relationship between the cell identifier field and a physical cell identifier (PCI) of the candidate target cell (page 8: receive, via MAC CE, to activate a TCI associated to a PCI other than the serving cell).
As to claim 4, Ericsson in view of Matsumura teaches the method according to claim 3. Ericsson further teaches wherein the association relationship is received by the terminal device by using a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (page 8: RRC configuration defines the TCI states and associations).
As to claim 5, Ericsson in view of Matsumura teaches the method according to claim 1. Ericsson further teaches wherein the configuration information comprises one or more of: a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI), a TCI state configuration, a synchronization broadcast signal block (SSB) receiving configuration, a random access channel (RACH) configuration, or serving cell configuration information (page 8: before receiving MAC CE indicating the switch, receive RRC configuration configuring other cell SSB/PCI and respective TCI states).
As to claim 6, Ericsson teaches a communication method performed by a network device or a component of a network device, comprising:
sending second information to a terminal device, wherein the second information comprises configuration information of one or more candidate target cells (page 8: before sending MAC CE to UE indicating the switch, send, to UE, RRC configuration configuring other cell SSB/PCI and respective TCI states);
generating first information, wherein the first information indicates to activate a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of a candidate target cell, the first information is media access control control element (MAC CE) signaling (page 8: generate MAC CE to activate a TCI associated to a PCI other than the serving cell); and
sending the first information to the terminal device (page 8: transmit the MAC CE to a UE).
Although Ericsson teaches “A communication method…(MAC CE) signaling; and sending…terminal device,” Ericsson does not explicitly disclose “the MAC CE…serving cell” and “determining, based…the serving cell”.
However, Matsumura teaches the MAC CE signaling includes a first field indicating whether to change a serving cell (¶¶186 and 270: MAC CE includes a field indicating whether to change the serving cell); and
determining, based on the first field in the first information, whether to change the serving cell (¶¶186 and 270-271: judge, based on the field in the MAC CE, whether to change the serving cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Ericsson by including “the MAC CE…serving cell” and “determining, based…the serving cell” as taught by Matsumura because it provides Ericsson’s method with the enhanced capability achieving more efficient beam management (Matsumura, ¶¶5-9, 186-187, and 270-271).
As to claim 7, Ericsson in view of Matsumura teaches the method according to claim 6. Ericsson further teaches wherein the MAC CE signaling comprises a cell identifier field that indicates the candidate target cell (page 8: MAC CE to activate a TCI associated to a PCI other than the serving cell).
As to claim 8, Ericsson in view of Matsumura teaches the method according to claim 7. Ericsson further teaches wherein there is an association relationship between the cell identifier field and a physical cell identifier (PCI) of the candidate target cell (page 8: receive, via MAC CE, to activate a TCI associated to a PCI other than the serving cell).
As to claim 9, Ericsson in view of Matsumura teaches the method according to claim 8. Ericsson further teaches wherein the association relationship is configured to the terminal device by using a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (page 8: RRC configuration defines the TCI states and associations).
As to claim 10, Ericsson in view of Matsumura teaches the method according to claim 6. Ericsson further teaches wherein the configuration information comprises one or more of the following information: a cell radio network temporary identifier (C- RNTI), a TCI state configuration, a synchronization broadcast signal block (SSB) receiving configuration, a random access channel (RACH) configuration, or serving cell configuration information (page 8: before sending MAC CE to UE indicating the switch, send, to UE, RRC configuration configuring other cell SSB/PCI and respective TCI states).
As to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
Conclusion
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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights