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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 9/04/2024 and 12/06/2025 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
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 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)(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 1-2, 5, 11-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shreevastav et al (US2025/0392978 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):
receive an indication that a cell is associated with a mobile integrated access and backhaul (IAB) status indicating that the cell is a mobile cell (Paras. 0026-0028 and 0032; 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); and
perform a cell selection or reselection operation based at least in part on an onboard status of the UE and based at least in part on the cell being associated with the mobile IAB status, wherein the onboard status indicates that the UE is onboard a moving entity (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).
Regarding claim 2, Shreevastav teaches 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 for camping based at least in part on the onboard 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. only onboard UEs should camp on the mobile IAB).
Regarding claim 5, Shreevastav teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to receive the indication, are configured to receive the indication 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, Shreevastav teaches 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 modify a parameter used to determine a mobility state parameter of the UE based at least in part on 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, it is instructed to camp on a cell).
Regarding claim 12, Shreevastav teaches 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 13, Shreevastav teaches 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 baseline measurement configuration based at least in part on 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).
Regarding claim 14, Shreevastav teaches 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).
Regarding claim 15, Shreevastav teaches 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 reselect another cell not associated with 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, it is instructed to camp on a cell).
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.
Claims 3-4 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 claim 3, Shreevastav teaches the limitations of the previous claims.
However, while Shreevastav teaches an indication may be an IAB cell specific flag in the MIB or system information block (SIB) and may identify not only mobile IAB cells, but any IAB cell (Para. 0040), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand constitutes multiple candidate cells to access, he does not specifically disclose 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.
Lee teaches cell selection in wireless communications (Abstract). He 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).
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 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).
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 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, Shreevastav teaches 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 selection or reselection of a cell 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 teachings as in Shreevastav. 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 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 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 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, Shreevastav teaches 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 for a second threshold length of time, wherein the onboard status is 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 for a second threshold length of time, wherein the onboard status is 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 teachings as in Shreevastav. 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 and Huawei teach the limitations of the previous claims. Shreevastav 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, are configured to: reselect a second cell associated with the mobile IAB status; and maintain the onboard status 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 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, 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, Shreevastav teaches 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 for a first threshold length of time, wherein the onboard status is based at least in part on detecting the cell 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 for a first threshold length of time, wherein the onboard status is based at least in part on detecting the cell 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 teachings as in Shreevastav. 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 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
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