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 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s amendments have not addressed the substance of the 112(b) rejections of claims 12 and 17. These rejections are maintained because “configuration parameters of candidate cells” do not actually define any actual candidate cells that can be referred to with the article “the”. In order to overcome the rejection, the applicant may remove the word “the” in front on the candidate cells as is done in claim 1, which is not rejected for this reason. The 112(b) rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn based on the applicant’s correction of the indentation and corresponding remarks.
With respect to the art the applicant argues:
The Office alleges that Kung inter alia teaches "a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) ...wherein the MAC CE comprises: a field ... indicating a first candidate cell," as recited in claim 1. Office Action at 3. Applicant respectfully disagrees. For example, Kung states that "TCI States Activation/Deactivation for UE specific PDSCH MAC CE is identified by a MAC subheader with LCID as specified in Table 6.2.1-1" and that "it has a variable size consisting of following fields:." Kung at [0166]. Kung states four fields here, none "indicating a first candidate cell," as required by claim 1. Kung at [0167]-[0170]. Kung instead teaches a "Serving Cell ID" indicating "a serving cell," a "BWP ID" indicating "a DL BWP," and a "CORESET Pool ID" indicating a mapping between "activated TCI states" and "DCI Transmission Configuration Indication." Kung at [0167]-[0170]. Rather than teaching the feature "a field ... indicating a first candidate cell," as required by claim 1, Kung teaches a field indicating a "serving cell." Kung at [0167].
The Examiner is now citing the embodiment in Figure 9 which better illustrates how Kung shows the claimed invention.
Next the applicant argues:
The Office alleges that Kung teaches a MAC CE "field" that "is based on a quantity of the candidate cells," as recited in claim 1. Office Action at 3. Applicant respectively disagrees. For example, while Kung states a "MAC CE" that is "consisting of' certain "fields," Kung at [0166]-[0170], the fields of Kung's MAC CE are different from what is claimed. Specifically, Kung discloses a number of fields, including a "Serving Cell ID," a "BWP ID,"a field indicating "the activation/deactivation status of [a] TCI state," and a "CORESET Pool ID." Kung at [0167]-[0170]; see also Kung at [0173]-[0175]. Rather than teaching the feature of a MAC CE "field" that "is based on a quantity of ... candidate cells," as recited in claim 1, Kung teaches fields based on "the identity of the Serving Cell," the identity of "a DL BWP", the "activation/deactivation status of [a] TCI state," and the "mapping" of TCI states. Kung at [0167]-[0170].
This argument also ignores the scope of the disclosure. The applicant has literal support for this limitation in paragraph 501-503, which mimic the claim languages but do not define anything specific about the quantity of bits or how they are “based on a quantity of candidate cells”. As pointed out, the claim does not even define candidate cells; the claim merely specifies that a field which indicates a candidate is somehow “among candidates”. As the applicant is arguing this is patentable feature but the disclosure does not explain how the quantity of bits is based on the quantity of cells, this limitation is rejected based on 35 USC section 112a for lacking adequate written description.
Finally the applicant argues:
The Office relies on step 808 of FIG. 8 of Kung in an attempt to show "receiving, ... a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE)," recited in claim 1. However, Kung explains that at step "808, the Source Cell 806 transmits a RRC message." Kung at [0335]. A person of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that Kung's "RRC message" is not a "MAC CE." Accordingly, Kung fails to disclose or suggest the above claim feature for at least this reason alone. Moreover, Kung describes a "MAC CE." See e.g., Kung at [0166],[0172], and [0173]. Kung explicitly distinguishes between a "MAC CE" and an "RRC Message," Kung at [0166] and [0335], and thus, the Office's attempt to mischaracterize Kung's RRC as being a MAC CE is contradicted by the Kung reference itself.
The Examiner has remapped the claims in terms of Figure 9 which shows the distinction between the RRC message 908 and the MAC CE 918.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Written Description Issue #1
Claims 1 features the following limitation:
switching, during the LTM procedure, a source cell to the first candidate cell.
The applicant did not the concept of switching during a LTM procedure a source cell to a first candidate cell. Instead, the applicant disclosed switching from using a source cell a primary cell to using the candidate as a primary cell. See paragraph 419. There is no disclosure that the source cell is “switched” to a “candidate cell”.
Written Description Issue #2
Claim 1 features the following limitation:
a field, comprising a first quantity of bits, indicating a first candidate cell among candidate cells, wherein the first quantity of bits is based on a quantity of the candidate cells;
Claim 12 features the following limitation:
a first field, comprising a first quantity of bits, indicating a first candidate cell among the candidate cells for the LTM procedure, wherein the first quantity of bits corresponds to a quantity of the candidate cells;
Claim 17 features the following limitation:
a first field, comprising a second quantity of bits, indicating a second cell of the first quantity of candidate cells for the LTM procedure, wherein the second quantity is determined based on the first quantity;
The applicant provides literal support for these limitations but fails to explain how the claimed quantity of bits which make up the MAC CE field is “based on” a quantity of candidate cells. Paragraphs 501-503 mimic the claim limitations but do not explain the nature of the relationship between the number of bits and the number of candidates. On 4/10/2026, the applicant argued this was a patentable feature so it would be reasonable to expect some technical explanation of how this feature is performed. Section 2163.03(V) of the MPEP states that a claim may lack written description support when the applicant claims and discloses a function but fails to disclose how the function is performed. In this case, the applicant has not disclosed how the quantity of bits is based on the quantity of candidate cells.
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.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the candidate cells" in the “a first field” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant previously references “configuration parameters of candidate cells for layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) procedure)” but does not define particular candidate cells that can be referred to with the article the and that would be defined by a quantity, as claimed.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first quantity of candidate cells" in the “a first field” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant previously recites “one or more parameters of a first quantity of candidate cells” but does not define any actual “first quantity of candidate cells” that can be subsequently referred to.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0030480 by Kung et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0302177 by Kwon et al.
As to claim 1, Kung teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) triggering a layer 1_or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) procedure (ref. no. 918) wherein the MAC CE comprises: a field indicating a candidate cell (paragraph 345); and switching, during the LTM procedure, a source cell to the first candidate cell (paragraph 346, UE switches to target cell 904 from source cell 906) however Kung does not explicitly teach that the field comprises a first quantity of bits, indicating a first candidate cell among candidate cells, wherein the first quantity of bits is based on a quantity of the candidate cells.
Kwon teaches a method of receiving, by a wireless device, a MAC CE comprising: a field comprises a first quantity of bits, indicating candidate cells, wherein the first quantity of bits is based on a quantity of the candidate cells (paragraph 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobility management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Kung regarding managing mobility using a MAC CE with the teachings of regarding having a quantity of bits in a field be based on a quantity of candidate cells in a MAC CE because information about a multitude of candidates could be provided to the UE without altering the inventive concept of Kung.
As to claim 12, Kung teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device and via a source cell, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising configuration parameters of candidate cells for a layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) procedure (ref. no. 908);receiving a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (step 918) triggering the LTM procedure, wherein the MAC CE comprises: a first field indicating a first candidate cell; and a second field comprising a timing advance command (TAC) (paragraph 345); and transmitting, via a primary cell (PCell) and based on switching from the source cell to the first candidate cell for the LTM procedure, uplink signals using the TAC (paragraphs 346 and 298, the mobility procedure in paragraph 346 can use the TAC referenced in paragraph 298) however Kung does not explicitly teach that the field comprises a first quantity of bits, indicating a first candidate cell among candidate cells, wherein the first quantity of bits is based on a quantity of the candidate cells.
Kwon teaches a method of receiving, by a wireless device, a MAC CE comprising: a field comprises a first quantity of bits, indicating candidate cells, wherein the first quantity of bits is based on a quantity of the candidate cells (paragraph 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobility management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Kung regarding managing mobility using a MAC CE with the teachings of regarding having a quantity of bits in a field be based on a quantity of candidate cells in a MAC CE because information about a multitude of candidates could be provided to the UE without altering the inventive concept of Kung.
As to claim 2, see rejection of claim 12 of Kung.
As to claims 4 and 14, see paragraph 346 of Kung.
As to claim 5, see paragraphs 83, 168 and 175 of Kung.
As to claims 7 and 15, see paragraph 346 of Kung, the switching “releases” any parameters related to the no longer used source cell 906.
As to claim 9, see paragraphs 81 and 327 of Kung.
As to claims 11 and 16, see paragraphs 267, 301, and 308 of Kung.
As to claim 13, see Figure 7 and paragraph 329 of Kung.
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0030480 by Kung et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0302177 by Kwon et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0324635 by Babai et al.
As to claim 17, Kung teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device via a first cell, one or more parameters of a first quantity of candidate cells for a layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) procedure (ref. no. 908); receiving a control element triggering the LTM procedure (ref. no. 918), wherein the control element comprises: a first field for the LTM procedure indicating a second cell (paragraph 345); and a field indicating a timing advance command (TAC) (paragraphs 260, 280, and 298); and switching a primary cell (PCell) from the first cell to the second cell, and transmitting, based on the TAC and via the second cell, at least one transport block (paragraphs 346 and 298, the mobility procedure in paragraph 346 can use the TAC referenced in paragraph 298); however Kung does not explicitly teach that the field comprises a first quantity of bits, indicating a first candidate cell among candidate cells, wherein the first quantity of bits is based on a quantity of the candidate cells and Kung does not explicitly teach that the MAC CE comprises: a second field indicating whether to skip performing a random access (RA) procedure on the second cell; wherein the switching is based on the second field indicating to skip performing the RA procedure, and wherein the switching comprises: skipping performing the RA procedure.
Kwon teaches a method of receiving, by a wireless device, a MAC CE comprising: a field comprises a first quantity of bits, indicating candidate cells, wherein the first quantity of bits is based on a quantity of the candidate cells (paragraph 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobility management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Kung regarding managing mobility using a MAC CE with the teachings of regarding having a quantity of bits in a field be based on a quantity of candidate cells in a MAC CE because information about a multitude of candidates could be provided to the UE without altering the inventive concept of Kung.
Babai teaches a MAC CE comprises: a second field indicating whether to skip performing a random access (RA) procedure on the second cell (paragraph 228); wherein the switching is based on the second field indicating to skip performing the RA procedure, and wherein the switching comprises: skipping performing the RA procedure (paragraph 228-230).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobility management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Kung regarding managing mobility using a MAC CE with the teachings of Babai regarding including a field to indicate skipping a RA procedure in a MAC CE because the modification would provide the benefits discussed in paragraph 228-230 of Babai without requiring any modification to the inventive concept of Kung.
As to claims 3 and 6, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 17.
As to claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claims 4 and 14.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claims 5 and 15.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0030480 by Kung et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0302177 by Kwon et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0046510 by Kung et al.
As to claim 8, Kung 1 teaches the subject matter of claim 1; however; Kung 1 does not explicitly teach the inclusion of an SSB index in the MAC CE.
Kung 2 teaches the inclusion of an SSB index in the MAC CE (paragraph 435).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobility management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Kung 1 regarding managing mobility using a MAC CE with the teachings of Kung 2 inclusion of an SSB index in the MAC CE because both publications are by the same inventor and directed to the same implementation environment and features so their combination is self-evident.
As to claim 10, see paragraphs 81 and 327 of Kung 1 and paragraph 435 of Kung 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights