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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 3/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9-11, 15, and 17-20 are amended.
Some informalities of the specification are amended.
Drawings (Figs. 2, 4, 5, and 6) are replaced.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 3/16/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The amendments change the scopes of the previously presented claims. New grounds of rejections are applied to the amended claims and the current Office Action is made FINAL as necessitated by the clam amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome each and every objection to the drawings previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 12/15/2015.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 3, 11, 19, and 20 have overcome the objection to claims 3, 11, 19, and 20 previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 12/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 17 (pages 13-14) in a reply filed 3/16/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current 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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6- 10, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (EP 3836651 A1, hereinafter Mochizuki) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2024/0023044 A1, hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 1:
Mochizuki teaches a method for handling transmission-reception points (TRPs) by a user equipment (UE) in a communication system including multiple TRPs (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 14), comprising:
receiving a plurality of TRP signals from a plurality of TRPs in the communication system (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 16, ST1410, ST1411, ST1503; para. [0228], “FIG. 16 and FIG. 17 are each a diagram illustrating operation in which the UE connected to a plurality of TRPs switches the connected TRP.”; para. [0231], “Steps ST1405 to ST1411 in FIG. 16 are similar to those of FIG. 14.”; para. [0232], “In Step ST1503 illustrated in FIG. 16, TRP #3 transmits the CSI-RS to the UE. In Step ST1413, the UE receives the CSI-RSs illustrated in Steps ST1410, ST1411, and ST1503”);
determining a set of TRPs from the plurality of TRPs based on a plurality of network parameters (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 16, ST1413; para. [0232], “In Step ST1413, the UE receives the CSI-RSs illustrated in Steps ST1410, ST1411, and ST1503, and performs measurement of the signals.”; and para. [0228], “In the example illustrated in FIG. 16 and FIG. 17, it is assumed that the TRP connected by the UE is switched from TRPs #1 and #2 to TRPs #1 and #3.”, wherein para. [0228] discloses a cluster composed of TRPs #1 and #2 and a cluster composed of TRPs #1 and #3 determined based on the received RS measurements. This step is inherent feature of Mochizuki.).
Mochizuki does not explicitly teach wherein clustering the set of TRPs into at least one cluster based on at least one characteristic related to the plurality of TRP signals so that TRPs of a same cluster are at least uplink (UL) synchronized and/or have a similar timing advance (TA) value.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches wherein clustering the set of TRPs into at least one cluster based on at least one characteristic related to the plurality of TRP signals so that TRPs of a same cluster are at least uplink (UL) synchronized and/or have a similar timing advance (TA) value (see, Zhou: para. [0114], “Uplink transmission synchronization for the UE 115-b may be accomplished via timing advance information management. The network entity 105-a may assigning timing advance group (TAG) information to different cells of the set of cells 305 based on the cell location, the operating band of the cell, or the location of the UE 115-b. Cells may share a TAG assignment.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mochizuki in combination of the teachings of Zhou in order for the mobility within the configured cell set may be accomplished through layer 1 and layer 2 signaling by fast activation and deactivation of cells within the set of cells (see, Zhou: Abstract and para. [0114]).
Mochizuki further teaches wherein selecting a cluster for path switching from the at least one cluster (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 16, ST1413; para. [0232], “In Step ST1413, the UE receives the CSI-RSs illustrated in Steps ST1410, ST1411, and ST1503, and performs measurement of the signals.”; and para. [0228], “In the example illustrated in FIG. 16 and FIG. 17, it is assumed that the TRP connected by the UE is switched from TRPs #1 and #2 to TRPs #1 and #3.”, wherein para. [0228] discloses a cluster composed of TRPs #1 and #2 and a cluster composed of TRPs #1 and #3 determined based on the received RS measurements. This step is inherent feature of Mochizuki.);
determining whether the selected cluster comprises a TRP better than a current TRP used by the UE (see, Mochizuki: para. [0125], “the UE may switch a transmission and reception destination TRP under the gNB. For example, using the fact that communication quality with another TRP under the same gNB has become better than a currently connected TRP, the UE may switch a connection destination TRP to the above-described TRP that has achieved the communication quality.”);
switching to the better TRP from the current TRP based on determining that the selected cluster comprises the TRP better than the current TRP (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 and para. [0228], “In the example illustrated in FIG. 16 and FIG. 17, it is assumed that the TRP connected by the UE is switched from TRPs #1 and #2 to TRPs #1 and #3.”; Fig. 17, ST1527-ST1529; para. [0235], “Using Step ST1506, the UE releases connection with TRP #2 in ST1527 in FIG. 17”; para. [0236], “Using Step ST1526, the UE starts reception operation of the SS block transmitted from TRP #3 to the UE in Step ST1528 illustrated in FIG. 17. In Step ST1529 illustrated in FIG. 17, the UE establishes downlink synchronization with TRP#3 by using the SS block of Step ST1528.”); and
transmitting a TRP switch message to at least one network apparatus (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 17, ST1507 and para. [0237], “In Steps ST1507 and ST1508 illustrated in FIG. 17, the UE transmits the PRACH to the gNB via TRP #3. Step ST1507 illustrates PRACH transmission from the UE to TRP #3, and further, Step ST1508 illustrates PRACH transmission from TRP #3 to the gNB.”).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Mochizuki in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein clustering the set of TRPs into the at least one cluster comprises:
determining an uplink (UL) synchronization for each of the set of the TRPs based on the at least one characteristic related to the plurality of TRP signals (see, Mochizuki: para. [0348], “The UE may establish uplink synchronization with the TRP included in the uplink synchronization command, by using the uplink synchronization command.”); and
performing at least one of:
adding at least one TRP from the set of TRPs that shares a same UL synchronization to the at least one cluster (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 20 and Fig. 21; para. [0264], “Step ST1726 illustrates the command from TRP #1 to the UE. The command may be transmitted by using the PDCCH. The command includes information indicating addition of TRP #2 and TRP #3. The command may include information related to the RA preamble.”), and sending a message informing about the at least one cluster to the at least one network apparatus (see, Mochizuki: para. [0237], “in Steps ST1507 and ST1508 illustrated in FIG. 17, the UE transmits the PRACH to the gNB via TRP #3. Step ST1507 illustrates PRACH transmission from the UE to TRP #3, and further, Step ST1508 illustrates PRACH transmission from TRP #3 to the gNB.”), and
eliminating at least one TRP from the set of TRPs that does not share the same UL synchronization (see, Mochizuki: para. [0235], “In Steps ST1505 and ST1506 illustrated in FIG. 16, the gNB notifies the UE of a command to release TRP #2 via TRP #1. Step ST1505 illustrates the command from the gNB to TRP #1, and further, Step ST1506 illustrates the command from TRP #1 to the UE. The command may be transmitted by using the PDCCH. Using Step ST1506, the UE releases connection with TRP #2 in Step ST1527 illustrated in FIG. 17.”).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Mochizuki in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the plurality of network parameters comprises an uplink and a downlink signal quality (see, Mochizuki: para. [0388], “in switch from a TRP capable of high power transmission (which may be hereinafter referred to as a high power TRP) to a TRP that performs low power transmission (which may be hereinafter referred to as a low power TRP), the TRP for uplink communication may be switched to the low power TRP first when the distance between the UE and the high power TRP is increased. For example, when the distance between the UE and the high power TRP is further increased, the TRP for downlink communication may be switched to the low power TRP. With this, for example, communication quality can be secured both in the uplink and the downlink.”; para. [0389], “the TRP for downlink communication may be switched first. For example, in switch from the low power TRP to the high power TRP, the TRP for downlink communication may be switched to the high power TRP first when, for example, the distance between the UE and the high power TRP is reduced. For example, when the distance between the UE and the high power TRP is further reduced, the TRP for uplink communication may be switched to the high power TRP. With this, effects similar to the above can be obtained.”).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Mochizuki in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the at least one characteristic related to the plurality of TRP signals comprises a location of the UE, a current time, a current mobile condition of the UE, a UL and downlink (DL) performance on each TRP signal, or an interference level associated with each TRP (see, Mochizuki: para. [0389], “the TRP for downlink communication may be switched first. For example, in switch from the low power TRP to the high power TRP, the TRP for downlink communication may be switched to the high power TRP first when, for example, the distance between the UE and the high power TRP is reduced. For example, when the distance between the UE and the high power TRP is further reduced, the TRP for uplink communication may be switched to the high power TRP. With this, effects similar to the above can be obtained.”; para. [0391], “According to the second modification of the first embodiment, the UE becomes capable of communicating uplink communication and downlink communication by using TRPs different from each other. As a result, for example, when uplink and downlink radio wave environments are different, uplink communication and downlink communication can be communicated by using communication paths optimal for each other.” Also, see para. [0188] [0198] [0399] [0401] [0444] [0454-0456] regarding interference reduction.).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Mochizuki in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein switching to the better TRP from the current TRP comprises:
performing a first layer (L1) measurement based on the better TRP (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 16; para. [0136], “the measurement command may be performed by using MAC signaling, or may be performed by using L1/L2 signaling.”; para. [0232], “In Step ST1413, the UE receives the CSI-RSs illustrated in Steps ST1410, ST1411, and ST1503, and performs measurement of the signals.”); and
determining whether an autonomous switch is configured at the UE (see, Mochizuki: para. [0245], “In switch of the TRP in the UE connected to a plurality of TRPs, the autonomous random access processing by the UE may be performed.”; para. [0258], “The operation performed through the autonomous random access processing by the UE (for example, the switch of the TRP and the addition of the TRP) may be statically determined in a specification, or may be broadcast or notified from the gNB to the UE.”); and
performing at least one of:
switching from the current TRP to the optimal TRP based on the L1 measurement based on the autonomous switch being configured at the UE (see, Mochizuki: para. [0221], “in switch of the TRP to be connected by the UE, the UE autonomously starts random access processing. Specifically, the UE may start the random access processing without the random access command described above transmitted from the gNB. The random access command described above may be, for example, a TRP switch command”), and transmitting the TRP switch message to the at least one network apparatus (e.g., sending random access (PRACH) to a network apparatus) (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 17, ST1507; para. [0245], “In switch of the TRP in the UE connected to a plurality of TRPs, the autonomous random access processing by the UE may be performed. In the description above, the switch of the TRP may be performed one by one.”; para. [0237], “In Steps ST1507 and ST1508 illustrated in FIG. 17, the UE transmits the PRACH to the gNB via TRP #3. Step ST1507 illustrates PRACH transmission from the UE to TRP #3, and further, Step ST1508 illustrates PRACH transmission from TRP #3 to the gNB.”), and
reporting the L1 measurement to the at least one network apparatus to switch from the current TRP to the optimal TRP based on the autonomous switch not being configured at the UE (see, Mochizuki: para. [0136], “the measurement command may be performed by using MAC signaling, or may be performed by using L1/L2 signaling.”; para. [0211], “In Steps ST1415 and ST1416 illustrated in FIG. 14, the UE notifies the gNB of measurement results of the CSI-RSs via TRP #1. Step ST1415 illustrates measurement result notification from the UE to TRP #1, and further, Step ST1416 illustrates measurement result notification from TRP #1 to the gNB. The measurement result notifications illustrated in Steps ST1415 and ST1416 may be performed by using RRC signaling, may be performed by using MAC signaling, or may be performed by using L1/L2 signaling.”; para. [0241], “FIG. 16 and FIG. 17 illustrate an example in which measurement of the CSI-RS is performed. However, measurement of the SS block may be performed. The gNB may command measurement of the SS block to the UE in Steps ST1405 and ST1406. The UE may notify the gNB of measurement results of the SS block in Steps ST1415 and ST1416. With this, for example, the UE can directly use the signal used for synchronization of a measurement target TRP as a measurement target, and thus the UE becomes capable of prompt measurement.”).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Mochizuki in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the at least one cluster is at least one of configured by the at least one network apparatus in a radio resource control (RRC) configuration (see, Mochizuki: para. [0235], “In Steps ST1625 and ST1626 in FIG. 18, the gNB starts a command of the RACH to the UE via TRP #1. Step ST1625 illustrates the command from the gNB to TRP #1, and further, Step ST1626 illustrates the command from TRP #1 to the UE. The command may be transmitted by using the PDCCH. The command includes information indicating addition of TRP #2. The command may include information related to the RA preamble.”, wherein the PDCCH is in RRC configuration.) and learning by the UE using at least one machine learning model.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 is directed towards a UE (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 8, UE 202; Fig. 16, UE) for handling transmission-reception points (TRPs) in a communication system including multiple TRPs, the UE comprising: a memory (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 8, Control Unit 310 of UE, Memory not shown but inherent); and at least one processor (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 8, Control Unit 310 of UE, Processor not shown but inherent) coupled to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed towards the UE of claim 9 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards the UE of claim 9 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is directed towards the UE of claim 9 that is further limited to similar features to claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards the UE of claim 9 that is further limited to similar features to claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed towards the UE of claim 9 that is further limited to similar features to claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 8, Control Unit 310 of UE, Memory not shown but inherent) storing instructions which, when, executed by at least one processor (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 8, Control Unit 310 of UE, Processor not shown but inherent) of a user equipment (UE) (see, Mochizuki: Fig. 8, UE 202; Fig. 16, UE) in a communication system including multiple transmission-reception points (TRPs), cause the UE to perform operations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is directed towards the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 that is further limited to similar features to claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19:
Lei et al. (US 2024/0012084 A1) [para. [0116]] discloses using the machine learning and/or spatial filtering to determine the beam(s) to report or select beams that yield the best results.
Regarding claims 8 and 16:
Kumar et al. (US 2023/0412470 A1) [para. [0109]] discloses using the machine learning model by the UE to identify a transmitting device to a passible receiving device used for device authentication and access control to reduce the vulnerability of 5G wireless communication systems.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights