DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-20 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14, and 16- 20 have been amended and claims 13 and 15 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/24/2026 regarding rejection of claims has been fully considered but they are moot given the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-5, 11-12, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shreevastav et al (US2025/0392978 A1) in view of Lee (US 2023/0028393 A1).
Regarding claims 1,17, and 20, Shreevastav teaches a user equipment (UE)/method/ non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication (Abstract), comprising:
a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to/ one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to (Para. 0034):
perform a cell selection or reselection operation to select or reselect a cell based at least in part on; the cell being associated with a mobile integrated access and backhaul (IAB} status (Paras. 0026-0028, 0032, and 0112; radio network node transmits, to a UE or an IAB node, system information comprising an indication of a cell, controlled by the radio network node, wherein the radio network node is an IAB node, and the indication indicates whether the cell is a mobile cell or not; the access to Mobile IAB cells in VMR should be used only by the UEs which are onboard and should be restricted to UEs outside of the vehicle. In other words, it needs to be ensured that the outside UEs do not camp on its mobile IAB cell; i.e. access for the UE reads on the cell selection or reselection):
the onboard status of the UE indicating that the UE is onboard an entity associated with the cell associated with the IAB status (Paras. 0026-0028, 0032, and 0112; the access to Mobile IAB cells in VMR should be used only by the UEs which are onboard and should be restricted to UEs outside of the vehicle. In other words, it needs to be ensured that the outside UEs do not camp on its mobile IAB cell; i.e. access for the UE reads on the cell selection or reselection); and
a value derived from a measurement of the cell associated with the mobile IAB status (Paras. 0026-0028, 0032, and 0103-0107; some mechanisms to have frequent measurements and reports to understand interference situation and, consequently, interference management schemes, may need to be developed. Hence, it is good if the issue of interference or origination/source of interference is mitigated as much as possible; If the distance between the UE 10 and an mIAB node is constant, while the distance to other static network nodes in the area is changing, the static node serving the UE 10 instructs the UE to camp on the mIAB cell; i.e. even though the UE is not onboard, the distance is measured to determine if the UE should camp on this cell).
However, Shreevastav does not specifically disclose with the mobile IAB status being within a range of a best cell value.
Lee teaches cell selection in wireless communications (Abstract). He further teaches with the mobile IAB status being within a range of a best cell value (Paras. 0176 and 0188-0194; If rangeToBestCell is configured, then the UE shall perform cell reselection to the cell with the highest number of beams above the threshold (i.e. absThreshSS-BlocksConsolidation) among the cells whose R value is within rangeToBestCell of the R value of the highest ranked cell. If there are multiple such cells, the UE shall perform cell reselection to the highest ranked cell among them. If this cell is found to be not-suitable, the UE shall not consider this cell and, for operation in licensed spectrum, other cells on the same frequency as candidates for reselection for a maximum of 300 seconds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Lee with the teachings as in Shreevastav. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce user and provider costs, improve service quality, and expand and improve coverage and system capacity (Lee at para. 0002).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the cell selection or reselection operation, are configured to select the cell associated with the mobile IAB status for camping (Paras. 0026-0028, 0032, and 0112; the access to Mobile IAB cells in VMR should be used only by the UEs which are onboard and should be restricted to UEs outside of the vehicle. In other words, it needs to be ensured that the outside UEs do not camp on its mobile IAB cell; i.e. only onboard UEs should camp on the mobile IAB).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to receive the indication, are configured to receive information indicating a set of candidate cells that are associated with the mobile IAB status (Para. 0232; after performing the cell selection to the determined mobile cell, the wireless device may perform a cell reselection to another mobile cell to which a similarity of movement pattern is largest among a plurality of candidate mobile cells. For example, candidate mobile cell may be a mobile cell for which the wireless device has stored history information).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the information indicating the set of candidate cells is in a system information block 4 (SIB4) (Paras. 0088-0089; information of which UEs and for what kind of access the cell can be used may be provided in a specific SIB for IAB or SIB1. The SIB with specific information may provide the necessary information based on which the UEs will know whether they can access that mobile cell. The restrictions to UEs can be, for example, based upon ranging, distance computation from IAB access node, relative speed or pathloss) and Lee further teaches information in a system information block 4 (SIB4) (Para. 0176; information of which UEs and for what kind of access the cell can be used may be provided in a specific SIB for IAB or SIB1. The SIB with specific information may provide the necessary information based on which the UEs will know whether they can access that mobile cell. The restrictions to UEs can be, for example, based upon ranging, distance computation from IAB access node, relative speed or pathloss).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive an indication of the mobile IAB status of the cell associated with the mobile IAB status in a system information block 1 (SIB1) (Paras. 0026-0028, 0032, and 0066; SIB1 contains information relevant when evaluating if a UE is allowed to access a cell and it defines the scheduling of other SIBs).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the cell selection or reselection operation based at least in part on the onboard status of the UE, are configured to modify a parameter used to determine a mobility state parameter of the UE based at least in part on the onboard status of the UE (Paras. 0103-0106; If the distance between the UE 10 and an mIAB node is constant, while the distance to other static network nodes in the area is changing, the static node serving the UE 10 instructs the UE to camp on the mIAB cell; i.e. even though the UE is not onboard, it is instructed to camp on a cell).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the cell selection or reselection operation is based at least in part on a mobility state parameter, and wherein reselection between cells associated with the mobile IAB status does not count toward a parameter used to determine the mobility state parameter (Paras. 0103-0106; If the distance between the UE 10 and an mIAB node is constant, while the distance to other static network nodes in the area is changing, the static node serving the UE 10 instructs the UE to camp on the mIAB cell; i.e. even though the UE is not onboard, it is instructed to camp on a cell).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the cell selection or reselection operation based at least in part on the onboard status, are configured to perform cell measurements according to a measurement configuration corresponding to the onboard status (Paras. 0103-0106; If the distance between the UE 10 and an mIAB node is constant, while the distance to other static network nodes in the area is changing, the static node serving the UE 10 instructs the UE to camp on the mIAB cell; i.e. even though the UE is not onboard, the distance is measured to determine if the UE should camp on this cell).
Claims 6-10, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shreevastav et al (US2025/0392978 A1) in view of Lee (US 2023/0028393 A1) further in view of Huawei (HUAWEI, et al , "Mobile IAB Mobility Enhancement", 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 meeting #119bis-e, R2-2209522, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Mobile Competence Centre, 650, Route Des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex, France, Vol RAN WG2, No E-meeting, 20221010 - 20221019, 30 September 2022, pp 1-6) IDS submitted by Applicant.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the cell selection or reselection operation based at least in part on the onboard status of the UE, are configured to selection or reselection of cells associated with the mobile IAB status (Paras. 0004, 0009-0010, 0139-0142, 0188-0197, and 0306; methods proposed in the present disclosure may be utilized in a situation that MTRPs cooperatively transmit; i.e. if the DCI and PDCCH are the same, they would have the same DAI).
However, while Shreevastav teaches cell selection/reselection to intra-frequency cells when the highest ranked cell is barred (Paras. 0068-0071), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would suggest prioritization, he does not specifically disclose configured to prioritize selection or reselection of a cell associated with the mobile IAB status.
Huawei teaches how to prevent other IAB-node from accessing mobile IAB (Introduction). He further teaches configured to prioritize selection or reselection of a cell associated with the mobile IAB status (Pages 2-3; If the mobile IAB transmits a mobile IAB indication to its served UEs, the on-board UEs can prioritize the mobile-IAB cell for cell (re-)selection, and in our view, such optimization is up to UE implementation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Huawei with the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide mobility enhancement for mobile IAB (Huawei at Introduction).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of references Shreevastav, Lee, and Huawei teach the limitations of the previous claims. Huawei further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to prioritize the selection or reselection, are configured to assign a highest priority to the cells associated with the mobile IAB status (Pages 2-3; If the mobile IAB transmits a mobile IAB indication to its served UEs, the on-board UEs can prioritize the mobile-IAB cell for cell (re-)selection, and in our view, such optimization is up to UE implementation). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Huawei with the teachings as in Shreevastav. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide mobility enhancement for mobile IAB (Huawei at Introduction).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims.
However, while Shreevastav teaches access the mobile IAB cell at a specific location and at a given point in time for a certain direction (Para. 0113), he does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: camp on the cell associated with the mobile IAB status for a second threshold length of time; and determine the onboard status of the UE based at least in part on camping on the cell for the second threshold length of time.
Huawei teaches how to prevent other IAB-node from accessing mobile IAB (Introduction). He further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: camp on the cell associated with the mobile IAB status for a second threshold length of time; and determine the onboard status of the UE based at least in part on camping on the cell for the second threshold length of time (Pages 2-3; UE can consider itself on-board of a mobile-IAB cell, if the UE camps on/connects to this cell during a long period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Huawei with the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide mobility enhancement for mobile IAB (Huawei at Introduction).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of references Shreevastav, Lee, and Huawei teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the cell associated with the mobile IAB status is a first cell, and wherein the one or more processors, to perform the cell selection or reselection operation based at least in part on the onboard status, are configured to: reselect a second cell associated with the mobile IAB status; and maintain the onboard status of the UE with regard to the second cell (Paras. 0068-0071 and 0084; i.e. the MIB shows reselection which would be reselecting another mobile IAB cell).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of references Shreevastav, Lee, and Huawei teach the limitations of the previous claims. Huawei further teaches wherein the cell is a first cell, and wherein the one or more processors, to perform the cell selection or reselection operation based at least in part on the onboard status of the UE, are configured to: reselect a second cell associated with the mobile IAB status; and reset a timer associated with the second threshold length of time (Pages 2-3; the mobilityState-r16 is included in the RRCSetupComplete/RRCResumeComplete message to indicate a UE’s speed. It is determined by the number of cell reselections during a period. The IAB-MT can reuse the mobilityState-r16 to report its speed to the network, and may consider the number of handovers in addition to the number of cell reselections, since the IAB-MT should be in RRC_CONNECTED after it starts to serve UEs. We understand this is sufficient to allow CU knowing the mobile IAB state).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach the limitations of the previous claims.
However, while Shreevastav teaches access the mobile IAB cell at a specific location and at a given point in time for a certain direction (Para. 0113), he does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect the cell associated with the mobile IAB status for a first threshold length of time, wherein the onboard status of the UE is based at least in part on detecting the cell associated with the mobile IAB status for the first threshold length of time.
Huawei teaches how to prevent other IAB-node from accessing mobile IAB (Introduction). He further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect the cell associated with the mobile IAB status for a first threshold length of time, wherein the onboard status of the UE is based at least in part on detecting the cell associated with the mobile IAB status for the first threshold length of time (Pages 2-3; the mobilityState-r16 is included in the RRCSetupComplete/RRCResumeComplete message to indicate a UE’s speed. It is determined by the number of cell reselections during a period. The IAB-MT can reuse the mobilityState-r16 to report its speed to the network, and may consider the number of handovers in addition to the number of cell reselections, since the IAB-MT should be in RRC_CONNECTED after it starts to serve UEs. We understand this is sufficient to allow CU knowing the mobile IAB state; UE can consider itself on-board of a mobile-IAB cell, if the UE camps on/connects to this cell during a long period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Huawei with the combination of references Shreevastav and Lee teach. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide mobility enhancement for mobile IAB (Huawei at Introduction).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of references Shreevastav, Lee, and Huawei teach the limitations of the previous claims. Huawei further teaches wherein the onboard status is based at least in part on detecting the cell for the first threshold length of time while the UE is camped on another cell not associated with the mobile IAB status (Pages 2-3; the mobilityState-r16 is included in the RRCSetupComplete/RRCResumeComplete message to indicate a UE’s speed. It is determined by the number of cell reselections during a period. The IAB-MT can reuse the mobilityState-r16 to report its speed to the network, and may consider the number of handovers in addition to the number of cell reselections, since the IAB-MT should be in RRC_CONNECTED after it starts to serve UEs. We understand this is sufficient to allow CU knowing the mobile IAB state).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KENT KRUEGER whose telephone number is (303)297-4238. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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.
/KENT KRUEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights