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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-51 are pending.
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 (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.
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, 3-4, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0359276) with provisional 62/587,313 cited in parallel, in view of Corkery (US Pat. No. 6,631,263).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a first base station (figure 9 source gNB; provisional 62/587,313’s page 26 figure 2 Source gNB) a method comprising (figure 9 and paragraphs 119-131; provisional 62/587,313’s pages 26-27):
receiving, by a first base station from a second base station, a first message comprising uplink configuration parameters for a cell of the second base station (figure 9 step 1, paragraph 120; provisional 62/587,313’s page 26 figure 2 step 1; page 26 section 1.: SUL information of SN cells. The target gNB informs the source gNB about SUL information of target cells includes information on the target cell (Cell ID and UL/DL frequency of target cell) and information of a SUL reference cell of the target cell (Cell ID and UL/DL frequency of the SUL reference cell),
wherein the cell comprises a plurality of uplink carriers (paragraph 4; provisional 62/587,313’s page 22: Problems in the prior art section: “in case of Supplementary Uplink (SUL), the UE is configured with 2 ULs/carriers for one DL of the same cell);
receiving, from a wireless device, a measurement report associated with at least one signal of the cell (paragraphs 121-122; provisional 62/587,313’s page 26, steps 2 and 3; page 26 section 2: measurement from UE to source gNB); and
sending a request to handover the wireless device to the cell of the second base station, wherein the request indicates an uplink carrier of the cell, and wherein the uplink carrier is selected, among the plurality of uplink carriers of the cell based on measurement report (paragraphs 124, 125; provisional 62/587,313’s page 26 figure 2 step 4 HO request. Page 26 item 3 and 4: source gNB issues a Handover Request to target gNB with information including information about selected SUL carrier. “The source gNB selects a SUL carrier of the target gNB cell and indicates the SUL carrier of the target gNB cell to the target gNB).
Lee further teaches handover decision/carrier selection is based on measurement report and another criterion (RRM information) (paragraphs 123 and 124).
Lee does not teach handover decision/carrier selection based on a power threshold value.
In the same field of handover, Corkery discloses selecting a target candidate cell with strongest uplink signal associated with a neighboring base station among plurality of neighbor base stations, based on the reported signal strength (power) is above a (power) threshold, and transmit appropriate command to the neighboring base station to implement the handoff to another channel/carrier (column 1 lines 57-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee handover decision/carrier selection based on a power threshold value for handover.
The motivation would have been to ensure the handover meets a minimum power/signal strength requirement (threshold).
Regarding claims 3, all limitations of claims 1 are disclosed above. Lee further teaches receiving, by the first base station from the second base station, at least one of: first radio resource status information of a first uplink resource of the plurality of uplink resources (paragraph 124).
Regarding claims 4, all limitations of claims 1 are disclosed above. Lee further teaches the sending the request is further based on at least one of: first radio resource status information of a first uplink resource of the plurality of uplink resources (paragraph 124).
Regarding claims 13, Lee discloses a first base station (figure 9 source gNB; provisional 62/587,313’s page 26 figure 2 Source gNB) a method comprising (figure 9 and paragraphs 119-131; provisional 62/587,313’s pages 26-27):
receiving, by a first base station from a second base station, a first message comprising uplink configuration parameters for a cell of the second base station (figure 9 step 1, paragraph 120; provisional 62/587,313’s page 26 figure 2 step 1; page 26 section 1.: SUL information of SN cells. The target gNB informs the source gNB about SUL information of target cells includes information on the target cell (Cell ID and UL/DL frequency of target cell) and information of a SUL reference cell of the target cell (Cell ID and UL/DL frequency of the SUL reference cell),
wherein the cell comprises a plurality of uplink carriers (paragraph 4; provisional 62/587,313’s page 22: Problems in the prior art section: “in case of Supplementary Uplink (SUL), the UE is configured with 2 UL carriers for one DL of the same cell);
sending, via a downlink of the cell of the second base station, at least one reference signal (paragraphs 121-122; provisional 62/587,313’s page 26, steps 2 and 3; page 26 section 2: UE measures reference signal from second base station in order to report the measurement to source gNB);
receiving, from a wireless device, a measurement report associated with at least one signal of the cell (paragraphs 121-122; provisional 62/587,313’s page 26, steps 2 and 3; page 26 section 2: measurement from UE to source gNB); and
sending a request to handover the wireless device to the cell of the second base station, wherein the request indicates an uplink carrier of the cell, and wherein the uplink carrier is selected, among the plurality of uplink carriers based on measurement report (paragraphs 124, 125; provisional 62/587,313’s page 26 figure 2 step 4 HO request. Page 26 item 3 and 4: source gNB issues a Handover Request to target gNB with information including information about selected SUL. “The source gNB selects a SUL carrier of the target gNB cell and indicates the SUL carrier of the target gNB cell to the target gNB);
receiving, by the second base station from the wireless device, via the selected uplink carrier, an uplink signal (figure 9 S914; Provisional’s figure 2 step 7; paragraphs 127).
Lee further teaches handover decision/carrier selection is based on measurement report and another criterion (RRM information) (paragraphs 123 and 124).
Lee does not teach handover decision/carrier selection based on a power threshold value.
In the same field of handover, Corkery discloses selecting a target candidate cell with strongest uplink signal associated with a neighboring base station among plurality of neighbor base stations, based on the reported signal strength (power) is above a (power) threshold, and transmit appropriate command to the neighboring base station to implement the handoff to another channel/carrier (column 1 lines 57-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee handover decision/carrier selection based on a power threshold value for handover.
The motivation would have been to ensure the handover meets a minimum power/signal strength requirement (threshold).
Claims 2, 14, 15, 21-24, 33-35, 41, 45, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0359276) with provisional 62/587,313 cited in parallel, in view of Corkery (US Pat. No. 6,631,263) in view of Huang et al. (US Pat. No. 9,503,940).
Regarding claims 2, 22 all limitations of claims 1, 21 are disclosed above. Lee further teaches sending, to the wireless device, a first indication of the selected uplink carrier for random access (figure 9 S08-S16; paragraphs 124-128: SUL selection for random access procedure).
Lee and Corkery do not teach but Huang discloses wherein the sending the request is further based on a load status value associated with one or more uplink carriers of the plurality of uplink carriers (col. 2 lines 3-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee and Corkery the sending the request is further based on a load status value associated with one or more uplink carriers of the plurality of uplink carriers.
The motivation would have been for load balancing.
Regarding claims 14 and 34, all limitations of claims 13 and 33 are disclosed above. Lee further teaches sending, for a handover of the wireless device, a response to the uplink signal (figure 9 step S914). Lee and Corkery do not teach but Huang discloses wherein the handover of the wireless device is based on a load status value associated with one or more uplink carriers of the plurality of uplink carriers (col. 2 lines 3-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee and Corkery wherein the handover of the wireless device is based on a load status value associated with one or more uplink carriers of the plurality of uplink carriers.
The motivation would have been for load optimization.
Regarding claims 15, 23, 35, all limitations of claims 13, 21, 33 are disclosed above. Lee further teaches receiving, by the first base station from the second base station, at least one of: first radio resource status information of a first uplink carrier of the plurality of uplink carriers (paragraph 124).
Regarding claims 24, all limitations of claims 21 are disclosed above. Lee further teaches the sending the request is further based on at least one of: first radio resource status information of a first uplink carrier of the plurality of uplink carriers (paragraph 124).
Claims 21 and 48 are rejected similarly as claim 1 above. Lee and Corkery do not teach but Huang teaches one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the first base station (col. 10 line 49 to col. 11 line 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee and Corkery one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the first base station. The motivation would have been to have necessity hardware to perform the invention.
Claim 33 is rejected similarly as claim 13 above. Lee and Corkery do not teach but Huang teaches one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the first base station (col. 10 line 49 to col. 11 line 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee and Corkery one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the first base station. The motivation would have been to have necessity hardware to perform the invention.
Claim 41 is rejected similarly as claim 13 above. Lee and Corkery do not teach but Huang teaches memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, (col. 10 line 49 to col. 11 line 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee and Corkery one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors. The motivation would have been to have necessity hardware to perform the invention.
Claim 45 is rejected similarly as claim 13 above. Lee and Corkery do not teach but Huang discloses a non-transitory medium storing instructions (col. 10 line 49 to col. 11 line 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee and Corkery a non-transitory medium storing instructions. The motivation would have been to have necessity hardware to perform the invention.
Claims 8, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0359276) with provisional 62/587,313 cited in parallel, in view of Corkery (US Pat. No. 6,631,263) in view of Pettersson et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0296625).
Regarding claims 8, 18, all limitations of parent claims are disclosed above. Lee and Corkery do not teach but Pettersson discloses the power value comprises at least one of: a power threshold for a high or non-high speed wireless device (paragraph 67: RSRP threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee and Corkery the power value comprises at least one of: a power threshold for a high or non-high speed wireless device.
The motivation would have been for a known measurement for handover.
Claims 28, 38, 43, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0359276) with provisional 62/587,313 cited in parallel, in view of Corkery (US Pat. No. 6,631,263) in view of Huang et al. (US Pat. No. 9,503,940) in view of Pettersson et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0296625).
Regarding claims 28, 38, 43, 46, all limitations of parent claims are disclosed above. Lee, Corkery, and Huang do not teach but Pettersson discloses the power value comprises at least one of: a power threshold for a high or non-high speed wireless device (paragraph 67: RSRP threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee, Corkery, and Huang the power value comprises at least one of: a power threshold for a high or non-high speed wireless device.
The motivation would have been for a known measurement for handover.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0359276) with provisional 62/587,313 cited in parallel, in view of Corkery (US Pat. No. 6,631,263) in view of Jones et al. (US Pat. No. 6,192,245).
Regarding claims 10, all limitations of claims 1 are disclosed above. Lee and Corkery do not teach but Jones discloses determining, based on the measurement report indicating a value greater than the power value, to send the request (col. 6 lines 15-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee and Corkery determining, based on the measurement report indicating a value greater than the power value, to send the request.
The motivation would have been for handover triggering.
Claims 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0359276) with provisional 62/587,313 cited in parallel, in view of Corkery (US Pat. No. 6,631,263) in view of Huang et al. (US Pat. No. 9,503,940) in view of Jones et al. (US Pat. No. 6,192,245).
Regarding claims 30, all limitations of claims 21 are disclosed above. Lee, Corkery, and Huang do not teach but Jones discloses determining, based on the measurement report indicating a value greater than the power value, to send the request (col. 6 lines 15-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee, Corkery, and Huang determining, based on the measurement report indicating a value greater than the power value, to send the request.
The motivation would have been for handover triggering.
Claim(s) 20 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0359276) with provisional 62/587,313 cited in parallel, in view of Corkery (US Pat. No. 6,631,263) in view of Huang et al. (US Pat. No. 9,503,940) in view of Wu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0076266).
Regarding claims 20 and 40, all limitations of claims 13 and 33 are disclosed above. Lee, Corkery, and Huang do not teach but Huang discloses sending, to the first base station and for the uplink carrier selection, a load status value associated with one or more uplink carriers of the plurality of uplink carriers (col. 2 lines 6-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee, Corkery, and Huang sending, to the first base station and for the uplink carrier selection, a load status value associated with one or more uplink carriers of the plurality of uplink carriers.
The motivation would have been for load optimization.
Lee further teaches the receiving the uplink signal via the selected uplink carrier comprises receiving, via the selected uplink carrier, a random access (figure 9 S912-916; paragraphs 124-127).
Lee, Corkery, and Huang do not teach but Wu discloses the random access preamble (paragraph 107: UE transmits random access preamble to target base station after handover).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee, Corkery, and Huang the random access preamble.
The motivation would have been for network connection with target base station.
Claims 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0359276) with provisional 62/587,313 cited in parallel, in view of Corkery (US Pat. No. 6,631,263) in view of Huang et al. (US Pat. No. 9,503,940)in view of Pettersson et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0296625).
Regarding claim 50, all limitations of claim 48 are disclosed above. Lee, Corkery and Huang do not teach but Pettersson discloses the power value comprises at least one of: a power threshold for a high or non-high speed wireless device (paragraph 67: RSRP threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Lee, Corkery, and Huang the power value comprises at least one of: a power threshold for a high or non-high speed wireless device.
The motivation would have been for a known measurement for handover.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 16-17, 19, 25-27, 29, 31, 32, and 36-37, 39, 42, 44, 47, 49, and 51 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to dependent claims 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 16-17, 19, 25-27, 29, 31, 32, and 36-37, 39, 42, 44, 47, 49, and 51, Lee discloses a concept of source eNB selecting Supplementary Uplink carrier for handover in target eNB based on UE’s measurement report. Corkery discloses handover decision for optimal cell selection is based on power threshold value. Huang teaches target base station sending plurality of uplink resources to source base station for selection of uplink resource for handover. Elements of claims 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 16-17, 19, 25-27, 29, 31, 32, and 36-37, 39, 42, 44, 47, 49, and 51 are not found in the art; even if they are found, it would invariably require impermissible hindsight reasoning due to the numbers and verities of references required and the limitations in the dependent claims. It would not have been obvious to combine the several references to teach the limitations of the dependent claims in combination with its parent claim(s).
Response to Arguments
With regards to Double Patenting rejection, the Applicant requests the Double Patenting rejection be held in abeyance. Examiner notes that a Terminal Disclaimer will be required for future allowance.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 18-19 of Remark, regarding independent claims, the Applicant argues that the combination of Lee and Corkery do not teach wherein the uplink carrier is selected, among the plurality of uplink carriers of the cell, based on a measurement report, and a power threshold value. In particular, the Applicant argues that Corkery does not teach wherein the uplink carrier is selected, among the plurality of uplink carriers of the cell, based on a power threshold value. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Lee reference teaches measurement report and one additional criterion (Radio Resource Management information (RRM)) are used to select one uplink carrier among plurality of uplink carrier for handover (paragraphs 123 and 124). Lee does not teach the additional criterion is a power threshold. Corkery discloses one criterion (exceeding a power threshold) is used to select the strongest signal/channel among plurality of uplink (measurements performed by base stations) channels of base stations (col. 1 lines 57-67). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine Corkery’s teaching with Lee for the claimed invention.
In page 20 of Remark, regarding independent claims, the Applicant argues that Corkery's selecting the target candidate cell contradicts the feature of claim 1 because Corkery's selecting is after the "request to handover the wireless device to the cell of the second base station". Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Corkery’s col. 1 lines 60-66 recite “selects the target candidate cell associated with the neighboring base station reporting the strongest signal, provided that the reported signal strength is above a threshold, and transmits appropriate commands to that neighboring base station and to the mobile station via the serving base station to implement the handoff on the same or a different traffic channel.” Thus, the selecting is before the "request to handover the wireless device to the cell of the second base station" by “selecting… the strongest signal…and transmits appropriate command to that neighboring base station… to implement the handoff.”
In page 20 of Remark, the Applicant argues that “in Corkery, the mobile switching center queries neighboring base stations and selects the target candidate cell after the serving base station sends a hand-off request to the mobile switching center. In contrast, claim 1 cites "sending a request to handover the wireless device to the cell of the second base station, wherein the request indicates an uplink carrier of the cell" (emphasis added).” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights