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 filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the prior art of Muller does not teach the limitation “a cell identifier (ID) of the node initiating the successful PSCell change”, see pages 10-11 of Applicant’s arguments.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 11, and 20 disclose the limitations “wherein the information in indicative of at least one of the following: whether the node initiating the successful PSCell change is either a master node or a secondary node that was serving the terminal prior to the successful PSCell change; or a cell identifier (ID) of the node initiating the successful PSCell change” in lines 7-12 (claim 1). The claim language includes the terms “at least one of the following” and “or”, consequently, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of the claim requires that the information may include an indication of either: “whether the node initiating the successful PSCell change is either a master node or a secondary node that was serving the terminal prior to the successful PSCell change”; or “a cell identifier (ID) of the node initiating the successful PSCell change”. In this instance, the prior art of record, Muller, teaches that the information is indicative of “whether the node initiating the successful PSCell change is either a master node or a secondary node that was serving the terminal prior to the successful PSCell change”( see rejections of claims 1, 11, and 19), and therefore anticipates the scope of the claims.
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, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MULLER J (WO 2024/035304).
Regarding claim 1, Muller discloses an apparatus (Fig. 8, network node 8300) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 8, processing circuitry 8302); and
at least one memory storing instructions that (Fig 8, memory 8304; p. [0172]), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving, from the terminal device, a successful primary secondary cell (PSCell) change report comprising information related to a node initiating a successful PSCell change for the terminal device (p. [0105], [0109]-[0112]; the first network node (i.e., apparatus) receives a response that indicates that the PSCell change is successful and a report), wherein the information is indicative of at least one of the following:
whether the node initiating the successful PSCell change is either a master node or a secondary node that was serving the terminal device prior to the successful PSCell change (p. [0106], [0112], [0114]; the first network node receives a report that contain information that indicates that the PSCell change was MN-initiated or SN-initiated, the report may contain MN Mobility information or SN mobility information, the mobility information containing necessary information to identify if PSCell Change was MN-initiated or SN-initiated); or
a cell identifier (ID) of the node initiating the successful PSCell change,
determining which node should perform a mobility robustness optimization for the terminal device at least by determining which node initiated the successful PSCell change (page 8, lines 3-8; p. [0035], [0055], [0080]; based on the report, it is determined if the PSCell change was initiated by the master node, if the change was initiated by the master node, analyzing the report to improve (i.e., optimize) the PSCell change; p. [0080]; knowing the initiator of the PSCell change may assist the network to send/forward the report to the right network node (e.g., which will likely to be the node who initiated the PSCell change) for analysis of the report and optimization of the PSCell change configuration parameters).
Regarding claim 2, Muller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: obtain the information from the secondary node of the terminal device (p. [0101]-[0102]; the second network node provides the information to the first network node (i.e., apparatus), the second network node operates as a Secondary Node SN).
Regarding claim 5, Muller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory stores instruction that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: determining that the information indicates the node initiating the successful PSCell change is the master node of the terminal device; and performing a mobility robustness optimization for the terminal device, based at least on the information (page 8, lines 3-8; p. [0035], [0055], [0080]; identify that the master node initiated PSCell change and if the change was initiated by the master node, analyzing the report to improve (i.e., optimize) the PSCell change).
Regarding claim 6, Muller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to performing: determining that the information indicates the node initiating the successful PSCell change is a secondary node of the terminal device; and transmitting the information to the node initiating the successful PSCell change (page 8, lines 3-8; p. [0035]; p. [0100]; if the PSCell change was initiated by a secondary node, forwarding the report to at least one of a source master node and a target secondary node).
Regarding claim 8, Muller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a master node of the terminal device (p. [0105]; the first network node is operating as a master node).
Regarding claim 11, Muller discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a terminal device, a successful primary secondary cell (PSCell) change report comprising information related to a node initiating a successful PSCell change for the terminal device (p. [0105], [0109]-[0112]; the first network node receives a response that indicates that the PSCell change is successful and a report), wherein the information is indicative of at least one of the following:
whether the node initiating the successful PSCell change is either a master node or a secondary node that was serving the terminal device prior to the successful PSCell change (p. [0106], [0112]; the first network node receives a report that contain information that the PSCell changes was MN-initiated or SN-initiated); or
a cell identifier (ID) of the node initiating the successful PSCell change,
determining which node should perform a mobility robustness optimization for the terminal device at least by determining which node initiated the successful PSCell change (page 8, lines 3-8; p. [0035], [0055], [0080]; based on the report, it is determined if the PSCell change was initiated by the master node, if the change was initiated by the master node, analyzing the report to improve (i.e., optimize) the PSCell change; p. [0080]; knowing the initiator of the PSCell change may assist the network to send/forward the report to the right network node (e.g., which will likely to be the node who initiated the PSCell change) for analysis of the report and optimization of the PSCell change configuration parameters).
Regarding claim 12, Muller disclose the method of claim 11, wherein obtaining the information comprises: obtaining the information from the secondary node of the terminal device (p. [0101]-[0102]; the second network node provides the information to the first network node (i.e., apparatus), the second network node operates as a Secondary Node SN).
Regarding claim 15, Muller discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining that the information indicates the node initiating the successful PSCell change is the master node of the terminal device; and performing a mobility robustness optimization for the terminal device, based on the information (page 8, lines 3-8; p. [0035], [0055]; identify that the master node initiated PSCell change and if the change was initiated by the master node, analyzing the report to improve (i.e., optimize) the PSCell change).
Regarding claim 16, Muller discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: determining that the information indicates the node initiating the successful PSCell change is a secondary node of the terminal device; and transmitting the information to the node initiating the successful PSCell change (page 8, lines 3-8; p. [0035]; p. [0100]; if the PSCell change was initiated by a secondary node, forwarding the report to at least one of a source master node and a target secondary node).
Regarding claim 20, Muller discloses a terminal device (Fig. 7, UE 7200) comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Fig. 7, processing circuitry 7202 and memory 7210), cause the terminal device at least to perform:
participating in a successful primary secondary cell (PSCell) change (p. [0055]); and
sending a successful primary secondary cell (PSCell) change report (p. [0056], [0109], [0110], [0111], [0112]; UE sends a response to first node that PSCell change was successful and a report to network node) comprising
information related to a node initiating the successful PSCell change for the terminal device (p. [0106], [0112]; the first network node receives a report that contain information that indicates that the PSCell change was MN-initiated or SN-initiated), wherein the information is indicative of at least one of the following:
whether the node initiating the successful PSCell change is either a master node or a secondary node that was serving the terminal device prior to the successful PSCell change (p. [0106], [0112]; the first network node receives a report that contain information that the PSCell changes was MN-initiated or SN-initiated); or
a cell identifier (ID) of the node initiating the successful PSCell change.
Regarding claim 21, Muller discloses the terminal device of claim 20, wherein the information is indicative of at least one of the following: the node initiating the successful PSCell: the node initiating the successful PSCell change is the master node that was serving the terminal device prior to the successful PSCell change (p. [0106], [0112]; the first network node receives a report that contain information that indicates that the PSCell change was MN-initiated or SN-initiated); or the cell ID of the master node initiating the successful PSCell change.
Regarding claim 22, Muller discloses the terminal of claim 20, further comprising: wherein the information is indicative of at least one of the following: the node initiating the successful PSCell: the node initiating the successful PSCell change is the secondary node that was serving the terminal device prior to the successful PSCell change (p. [0106], [0112]; the first network node receives a report that contain information that indicates that the PSCell change was MN-initiated or SN-initiated); or the cell ID of the secondary node initiating the successful PSCell change.
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.
Claims 3, 13, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER J in view of KRISHNAN et al. (US 2024/0049074).
Regarding claim 3, Muller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the master node is an original master node, and wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: obtain information from an other master node of the terminal device that became the master node after handover of the terminal device from the original master node to the other master node.
However, Krishnan teaches wherein the master node is an original master node, and wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: obtains information from an other master node of the terminal device that became the master node after handover of the terminal device from the original master node to the other master node (Fig. 7, step 780; p. [0147]-[0149]; the first master node MN receives the successful PSCell change report SPC from the second master node MN2; note that the UE previously performed a handover procedure from the first MN 105A to the second MN 105B – p. [0144]).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller with the teachings of Krishnan, since such a modification would allow the source master node to obtain the successful PSCell change SPC report information from the specific node on which the report information it is available.
Regarding claim 13, Muller disclose the method of claim 11, but does not particularly disclose wherein obtaining the information comprises: obtain the information from an other master node of the terminal device that became the master node after handover of the terminal from an original master node to the other master node.
However, Krishnan teaches wherein obtaining the information comprises: obtain the information from an other master node of the terminal device that became the master node after handover of the terminal from an original master node to the other master node (Fig. 7, step 780; p. [0147]-[0149]; the first master node MN receives the successful PSCell change report SPC from the second master node MN2; note that the UE previously performed a handover procedure from the first MN 105A to the second MN 105B – p. [0144]).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller with the teachings of Krishnan, since such a modification would allow the source master node to obtain the successful PSCell change SPC report information from the specific node on which the report information it is available.
Regarding claim 24, Muller discloses the terminal device of claim 20, but does not particularly disclose wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the terminal device at least to perform:
receiving, from the master node, a request for retrieving at least one of successful primary secondary cell change report (SPCR) or mobility history information (MHI); and transmitting the information to the master node, in response to the request.
However, Krishnan teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the terminal device at least to perform:
receiving, from the master node, a request for retrieving at least one of successful primary secondary cell change report (SPCR) or mobility history information (MHI); and transmitting the information to the master node, in response to the request (Fig. 5, steps 545-550; p. [0108], [0111], [0112]; the UE transmits to the MN a message indicating that successful PSCell change information is available, the UE receives an information request from the MN based on the indication, and the UE transmits a UE information response or report based on the information request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller with the teachings of Krishnan, in order for the master node to obtain information that will allow to perform network optimizations (p. [0114]).
Claims 7, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER J in view of YAN et al. (US 2024/0205763).
Regarding claim 7, Muller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the information further indicates a cell ID of a primary cell of the terminal device.
However, Yan teaches wherein the information further indicates a cell ID of a primary cell of the terminal device (p. [0220], [0224]; Yan teaches the transmission of PSCell change related information from one network node to another, the information including source PSCell ID). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller with the teachings of Yan, since such information would allow to identify and associate the successful PSCell change with a particular cell.
Regarding claim 17, Muller disclose the method of claim 11, but does not particularly disclose wherein the information further indicates a cell ID of a primary cell of the terminal device.
However, Yan teaches wherein the information further indicates a cell ID of a primary cell of the terminal device (p. [0220], [0224]; Yan teaches the transmission of PSCell change related information from one network node to another, the information including source PSCell ID). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller with the teachings of Yan, since such information would allow to identify and associate the successful PSCell change with a particular cell.
Regarding claim 23, Muller discloses the terminal of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the information further indicates a cell ID of a primary cell of the terminal device.
However, Yan teaches wherein the information further indicates a cell ID of a primary cell of the terminal device (p. [0220], [0224]; Yan teaches the transmission of PSCell change related information from one network node to another, the information including source PSCell ID). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller with the teachings of Yan, since such information would allow to identify and associate the successful PSCell change with a particular cell.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER J in view of REDHWAN et al. (WO 2024/035305).
Regarding claim 18, Muller discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein:the apparatus is a first node that performs the receiving and the determining, and the first node is connected to the terminal device (Fig. 11; p. [0109], [0129]; the first network node receives the report from the UE, there is a connection between the UE and network node as shown in figure 11);
the information is indicative of at least one of the following:
the node initiating the successful PSCell change is the master node that was serving the terminal device prior to the successful PSCell change (p. [0106], [0112], [0114]; the first network node receives a report that contain information that the PSCell change was MN-initiated or SN-initiated, the report may contain MN Mobility information or SN mobility information, the mobility information containing necessary information to identify if PSCell Change was MN-initiated or SN-initiated); or
the cell ID of the master node initiating the successful PSCell change;
the determining comprises determining the node which should perform the mobility robustness optimization for the terminal device is the master node that was serving the terminal device prior to the successful PSCell change (page 8, lines 3-8; p. [0035], [0055], [0080]; based on the report, it is determined if the PSCell change was initiated by the master node, if the change was initiated by the master node, analyzing the report to improve (i.e., optimize) the PSCell change; p. [0080]; knowing the initiator of the PSCell change may assist the network to send/forward the report to the right network node (e.g., which will likely to be the node who initiated the PSCell change) for analysis of the report and optimization of the PSCell change configuration parameters).
But, Muller does not particularly disclose wherein the first node is different from the node that initiated the successful PSCell change; and sending, from the first node to the node that initiated the successful PSCell change, the information from the successful PSCell change report.
However, Redhwan teaches wherein the first node is different from the node that initiated the successful PSCell change; and sending, from the first node to the node that initiated the successful PSCell change, the information from the successful PSCell change report (p. [0131]; the node receiving the successful PSCell report from the UE is neither MN nor SN, in such instances, the node (i.e., first node) receiving the report can forward the report to the initiator of the PSCell procedure). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller with the teachings of Redhwan, since such a modification would allow the node that initiated the successful PSCell change to analyze the report and make adjustments to the configuration if necessary (p. [0015]).
Regarding claim 19, Muller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the information is indicative of both of the following: whether the node initiating the successful PSCell change is either the master node or the secondary node that was serving the terminal device prior to the successful PSCell change; and the cell ID of the node initiating the successful PSCell change.
However, Redhwan teaches wherein the information is indicative of both of the following: whether the node initiating the successful PSCell change is either the master node or the secondary node that was serving the terminal device prior to the successful PSCell change; and the cell ID of the node initiating the successful PSCell change (p. [0025], [0059], [0084], [0085]; the report can include PCell Identity when procedure was initiated by the MN). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muller with the teachings of Redhwan, in order to provide an explicitly identify the node that initiated the successful PSCell change.
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 MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643