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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are
being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a command module that receives a command….” and “a cell switch module that switches…” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 11 is 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. Applicant’s specification does not describe any structure for the claimed “command module” or the “cell switch module”.
Claims 12-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations “a command module that receives a command….” and “a cell switch module that switches…” in claim 11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose the corresponding structure for the command module and the cell switch module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification
already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 12-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 20240147328 A1, hereinafter Kim et al).
Consider claim 1, Kim discloses a method for a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network, comprising:
receiving, by the UE, a command for cell change from the wireless network, wherein the command for cell change indicates to switch from a source cell to a target cell (FIG. 30 shows example of inter-DU L1/L2 triggered mobility. The inter-DU LTM may refer to a handover or cell switch using LTM from a source cell of a first DU to a target cell of a second DU (e.g., different from the first DU). For example, a serving DU (e.g., 3002) in FIG. 30 may comprise a source cell (e.g., current serving cell) of a wireless device. A candidate DU (e.g., 3003 in FIG. 30) may comprise a target cell of the wireless device for the LTM; The serving DU of the base station may transmit to the wireless device a L1/L2 signaling (e.g., L/L2 signal in FIG. 30) indicating the determining (e.g., at step 3065A) (e.g. cell switch command), Fig. 30 and paragraphs 460 and 462);
performing downlink synchronization on the target cell before performing one or more of UE layer-1/layer-2/layer-3 (L1/L2/L3) processing procedures, wherein the UE L1/L2/L3 processing procedures comprising L2 reconfiguration, L3 reconfiguration, radio frequency (RF) retuning, baseband retuning and security update (The wireless device may perform synchronization with the target cell (e.g., at step 3070A). The synchronization may comprise uplink synchronization and/or downlink synchronization, Fig. 30 and paragraph 462; Fig. 31B shown performing UE DL synchronization before RRC Reconfiguration, see paragraph 467); and
switching to the target cell after performing the one or more of UE L1/L2/L3 processing procedures (FIG. 31A and FIG. 31B show examples of PCell switching, paragraph 467).
Consider claim 11, Kim discloses a user equipment (UE) (wireless device 1502,
fig. 15A), comprising:
a transceiver (transmission processing system 1520, reception processing system 1522, Fig. 15A) that transmits and receives radio frequency (RF) signal in a wireless network;
a command module (processing system 1518, Fig. 15A and paragraph 203) that receives a command for cell change from the wireless network, wherein the command for cell change indicates to switch from a source cell to a target cell (FIG. 30 shows example of inter-DU L1/L2 triggered mobility. The inter-DU LTM may refer to a handover or cell switch using LTM from a source cell of a first DU to a target cell of a second DU (e.g., different from the first DU). For example, a serving DU (e.g., 3002) in FIG. 30 may comprise a source cell (e.g., current serving cell) of a wireless device. A candidate DU (e.g., 3003 in FIG. 30) may comprise a target cell of the wireless device for the LTM; The serving DU of the base station may transmit to the wireless device a L1/L2 signaling (e.g., L/L2 signal in FIG. 30) indicating the determining (e.g., at step 3065A) (e.g. cell switch command), Fig. 30 and paragraphs 460 and 462);
a procedure controller (processing system 1518, Fig. 15A and paragraph 203) that performs downlink synchronization on the target cell before performing one or more of UE layer-1/layer-2/layer-3 (L1/L2/L3) processing procedures, wherein the UE L1/L2/L3 processing procedures comprising L2 reconfiguration, L3 reconfiguration, radio frequency (RF) retuning, baseband retuning and security update (The wireless device may perform synchronization with the target cell (e.g., at step 3070A). The synchronization may comprise uplink synchronization and/or downlink synchronization, Fig. 30 and paragraph 462; Fig. 31B shown performing UE DL synchronization before
RRC Reconfiguration, see paragraph 467); and
a cell switch module (processing system 1518, Fig. 15A and paragraph 203) that switches the UE to the target cell after performing the one or more UE L1/L2/L3 processing procedures (FIG. 31A and FIG. 31B show examples of PCell switching, paragraph 467).
Consider claims 2 and 12, and as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, Kim discloses wherein the command for cell change is a cell switch command (see cell switch command in Fig. 31B).
Consider claims 3 and 13, and as applied to claims 2 and 12 respectively above, Kim discloses wherein the UE receives a pre-configuration of candidate cells from the
wireless network before receiving the cell switch command (see Pre-Config in Fig. 31B).
Consider claims 4 and 14, and as applied to claims 2 and 12 respectively above, Kim discloses wherein the UE performs downlink synchronization after receiving the cell switch command (see Fig. 31B).
Consider claims 5 and 15, and as applied to claims 2 and 12 respectively above, Kim discloses wherein the cell switch command is carried by a MAC control element (CE) (An L1/L2 triggered mobility (LTM) may refer to a handover or cell switch (e.g., from a current serving cell to a target cell) that a wireless device initiates, triggers, execute, performs (e.g., in response to receiving an L1 control signaling (e.g., DCI)
and/or an L2 control signaling (e.g., MAC CE)), paragraph 438).
Consider claims 6 and 16, and as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, Kim discloses wherein the command for cell change is a conditional handover command, and wherein the UE performs downlink synchronization on the target cell when at least one handover condition is met (A conditional handover (CHO) may be defined as a handover (e.g., layer 3 handover) that may be executed by a wireless device if one or more handover execution conditions may be met, paragraph 397, see also Fig. 28 and paragraphs 452-453).
Consider claims 7 and 17, and as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, Kim discloses wherein the cell switch procedure is a random access channel (RACH) based cell switch (After receiving the L1/L2 signal indicating cell switch (e.g., cell switching command), a wireless device may perform UL synchronization by conducting RACH procedure, paragraph 470).
Consider claims 8 and 18, and as applied to claims 7 and 17 respectively above, Kim discloses wherein the UE transmits physical RACH (PRACH) on the target cell before performing the one or more of UE L1/L2/L3 processing procedures and after receiving the command for cell change (wireless device may spend around 20 ms for uplink (UL) synchronization comprising a first time period of an interruption uncertainty (TIU) in acquiring a first available PRACH occasion for a preamble transmission in the target cell..., see Fig. 31B and paragraph 467).
Consider claims 9 and 19, and as applied claims 7 and 17 respectively above, Kim discloses wherein the UE transmits PRACH on the target cell after performing the one or more of UE L1/L2/L3 processing procedures (see Fig. 31A, PRACH occurs after UE Reconfiguration),
Consider claims 10 and 20, and as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, Kim discloses wherein the cell switch procedure is a RACH-less cell switch procedure (The RRC reconfiguration may include a timing adjustment indication and/or, optionally, a pre-allocated uplink grant for accessing a target base station 2015, for example, if RACH-less HO may be configured, paragraph 376; A wireless device may transmit to a base station an RACH-less HO capability indication which indicates whether the wireless device supports RACH-less handover. Based on the RACH-less HO capability indication, a base station may determine to configure/transmit a configuration for RACH-less HO (RACH skip configuration), paragraph 380).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERMAN VIANA DI PRISCO whose telephone number is (571)270-1781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571) 272-7915. 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.
/GERMAN VIANA DI PRISCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights