DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-13 and 21-25, in the reply filed on 6 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6, 9-13, 21-25, 31-36, and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0388891 (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (disclosed is a UE for wireless communication, according to [0039], Fig. 1A [element 102]), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (the UE comprises a computer-readable memory storing machine-readable instructions executable on the UE’s general-purpose processor(s), according to [0047]); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and operable to execute the code to cause the UE (the UE comprises one or more general-purpose processors coupled to the computer-readable memory and operable to execute the instructions stored in said memory, according to [0047]) to:
transmit, to a network entity associated with a serving cell, a message indicating UE assistance information for a conditional change of the serving cell, a request for network assistance information for the conditional change of the serving cell, or both (the UE sends a UEAssistanceInformation message, comprising a preferred configuration, to a base station 104 (which is a source base station, according to [0042]), according to [0051], whereby said preferred configuration is for a conditional cell change procedure [“a message indicating UE assistance information for a conditional change of the serving cell”], according to [0001], [0013]);
receive, from the network entity, a control message that indicates a set of candidate cells for the conditional change of the serving cell (the UE receives, from the base station 104, an RRC reconfiguration message that comprises a C-MN configuration, according to [0098], Fig. 3A [step 312A], whereby said C-MN configuration comprises a list of candidate cells, according to [0102]); and
perform the conditional change of the serving cell to a target cell of the set of candidate cells based at least in part on the network assistance information and on one or more conditions being satisfied for the conditional change of the serving cell (since the limitation upon which this limitation depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this limitation is directed [“the network assistance information”] is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this limitation).
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses a network entity for wireless communication (disclosed is a base station, according to [0039], Fig. 1A [element 104]), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (the base station comprises a computer-readable memory storing machine-readable instructions executable on the base station’s general-purpose processor(s), according to [0045]); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and operable to execute the code to cause the network entity (the base station comprises one or more general-purpose processors coupled to the computer-readable memory and operable to execute the instructions stored in said memory, according to [0045]) to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), a message indicating UE assistance information for a conditional change of a serving cell, a request for network assistance information for the conditional change of the serving cell, or both (the base station receives a UEAssistanceInformation message, comprising a preferred configuration, from a UE, according to [0051], whereby said preferred configuration is for a conditional cell change procedure [“a message indicating UE assistance information for a conditional change of a serving cell”], according to [0001], [0013]); and
transmit, to the UE, a control message that indicates a set of candidate cells for the conditional change of the serving cell (the base station sends, to the UE, an RRC reconfiguration message that comprises a C-MN configuration, according to [0098], Fig. 3A [step 312A], whereby said C-MN configuration comprises a list of candidate cells, according to [0102]).
Claim 31 recites the method (disclosed is a method, according to Abstract, [0084], Fig. 3A) according to which the UE recited in claim 1 operates, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 38 recites the method (disclosed is a method, according to Abstract, [0084], Fig. 3A) according to which the UE recited in claim 21 operates, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 21.
Regarding claim 2, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 3, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 4, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 5, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
determine an offset value, or a hysteresis value, or both, for each candidate cell of the set of candidate cells, wherein each offset value, or each hysteresis value, or both, is mapped to a system loading status of a candidate cell, a network energy saving status of the candidate cell, one or more coverage enhancement schemes supported by the candidate cell, or any combination thereof (the UE determines offsets for candidate cells, according to [0051], [0060], whereby the UE suggests offset adjustments for the purpose of power saving, according to [0088]-[0091]);
perform measurements of signals associated with respective candidate cells of the set of candidate cells and signals associated with the serving cell (the UE performs measurements on candidate cells and on the source cell, according to [0060]); and
evaluate each candidate cell of the set of candidate cells for the conditional change of the serving cell based at least in part on the measurements, the offset value, or the hysteresis value, or any combination thereof (the candidate cells are evaluated based on their measurements in relation to the offset, according to [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 10, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 11, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the control message further indicates the set of candidate cells and a first configuration of the one or more conditions for performing the conditional change of the serving cell (the RRC reconfiguration message that is received by the UE comprises a C-MN configuration, according to [0098], Fig. 3A [step 312A], whereby said C-MN configuration comprises a list of candidate cells and associated configuration parameters, according to [0102]), and the one or more processors are further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive a second control message indicating a second configuration of the one or more conditions, wherein performing the conditional change of the serving cell to the target cell is based at least in part on the second configuration of the one or more conditions (the UE receives a second RRC reconfiguration message, comprising a second MN configuration for conditional handover, according to [0105]-[0108], Fig. 3A [step 324A]).
Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the UE assistance information includes an indication of a preferred waveform, one or more coverage enhancement schemes supported by the UE, a buffer status report, a power headroom report, a preferred power budget for power aggregation at the UE, an estimate of a location of the UE, an estimate of a velocity of the UE, a report for a buffer status or a power headroom of the UE, an indication of one or more power saving configurations, a report of a capability of the UE associated with single-connectivity or multi-connectivity, or any combination thereof (the UEAssistanceInformation message comprises a preferred configuration, according to [0051], whereby the preferred configuration specifies actions to be taken for power saving [“an indication of one or more power saving configurations”], according to [0088]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 22, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 23, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 24, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 25, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Claim 32 does not differ substantively from claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 33 does not differ substantively from claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 34 does not differ substantively from claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 35 does not differ substantively from claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 36 does not differ substantively from claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 39 does not differ substantively from claim 22, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 22.
Claim 40 does not differ substantively from claim 23, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 23.
Claim 41 does not differ substantively from claim 24, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 24.
Claim 42 does not differ substantively from claim 25, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 7-8 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claims 6 and 36 above, in view of Xu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0035349 (hereinafter Xu), further in view of Callender et al., AU 2009241985 B2 (hereinafter Callender).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Wu discloses selecting the target cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on an offset value for the target cell (a candidate cell is selected as the target cell based on the signal strength/quality measured by the UE being better than that of the source cell by the offset value, according to [0060]).
Wu does not expressly disclose selecting the target cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a sum of a measurement value for the target cell, and a hysteresis value for the target cell being greater than a measurement value for the serving cell.
Xu discloses selecting the target cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a sum of a measurement value for the target cell (a terminal selects a candidate cell as the final target cell based on the signal level value of said candidate cell being larger than the sum value of the frequency specific minimum receiving level value Qrxlevmin and the Cell specific minimum receiving level value Qrxlevmin-offset, according to [0073], [0080], [0093]-[0100], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu with Xu by selecting the target cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a sum of a measurement value for the target cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid ping-pong reselection (Xu: [0007], [0073], [0080], [0112]).
Neither Wu nor Xu expressly discloses selecting the target cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a hysteresis value for the target cell being greater than a measurement value for the serving cell.
Callender discloses selecting the target cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a hysteresis value for the target cell being greater than a measurement value for the serving cell (an available cell is selected based on whether a level associated with that cell is higher than the level of the serving cell by a hysteresis value, according to page 2 line 52 to page 3 line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu as modified by Xu with Callender by selecting the target cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a hysteresis value for the target cell being greater than a measurement value for the serving cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid ping-pong behavior in a cell reselection process (Callender: page 5 lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Wu discloses refraining from selecting a second candidate cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a sum of a measurement value for the second candidate cell (a candidate cell is selected as the target cell based on whether or not the signal strength/quality measured by the UE being better than that of the source cell by the offset value, according to [0060]).
Wu does not expressly disclose refraining from selecting a second candidate cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a sum of a measurement value for the second candidate cell, and a hysteresis value for the second candidate cell being less than a measurement value for the serving cell.
Xu discloses refraining from selecting a second candidate cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a sum of a measurement value for the second candidate cell (a terminal selects a candidate cell as the final target cell based on whether or not the signal level value of said candidate cell being larger than the sum value of the frequency specific minimum receiving level value Qrxlevmin and the Cell specific minimum receiving level value Qrxlevmin-offset, according to [0073], [0080], [0093]-[0100], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu with Xu by refraining from selecting a second candidate cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a sum of a measurement value for the second candidate cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid ping-pong reselection (Xu: [0007], [0073], [0080], [0112]).
Neither Wu nor Xu expressly discloses refraining from selecting a second candidate cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a hysteresis value for the second candidate cell being less than a measurement value for the serving cell.
Callender discloses refraining from selecting a second candidate cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a hysteresis value for the second candidate cell being less than a measurement value for the serving cell (an available cell is selected based on whether or not a level associated with that cell is higher than the level of the serving cell by a hysteresis value, according to page 2 line 52 to page 3 line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu as modified by Xu with Callender by refraining from selecting a second candidate cell from the set of candidate cells based at least in part on a hysteresis value for the second candidate cell being less than a measurement value for the serving cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid ping-pong behavior in a cell reselection process (Callender: page 5 lines 4-5).
Claim 37 does not differ substantively from claim 7, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights