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 with respect to claim(s) 16-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 16, 21, 26, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Cui (2023/0232290).
Regarding claim 16, Chang discloses a method performed by a user equipment in a wireless communications system (Figure 1) comprising: receiving, from a base station, a RRC configuration message including a lower layer triggered mobility configuration (Page 5, translation example 1, step 101, RRC reconfiguration message received as a handover command where the RRC information is a lower layer, i.e. MAC/PHY layer, step 102, also operation 1-2 discussion), wherein the LTM configuration includes a list of at least one candidate configuration information, wherein each of the candidate configuration information includes an ID of an LTM candidate configuration and the LTM candidate configuration included in the LTM configuration (page 3, discussion that the RRC reconfiguration information includes mobility control information which includes the target cell identity, i.e. An ID of the LTM candidate); and applying a RRC reconfiguration corresponding to the information associated with the ID of the LTM candidate (page 6, step 104- RRC layer signaling is performed to complete the handover process based on the previous steps.). Chang does not disclose receiving form the base station, a MAC control element (CE) message for a LTM cell switching procedure.
However, Cui teaches in an analogous art, the use of medium access control (CE) elements which are used to indicate LTM cell switch execution (para 165 and para 181, UE receives the handover command via Layer 1/layer 2 signaling including a Mac CE element). Also note, Figure 8 and para 114-118 which discuss the L1/L2 handover RACH configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a MAC CE element for indication of a cell switch command in order to simplify the handover and RACH procedure as taught by Cui.
Regarding claim 21, Chang discloses a base station (abstract, page 1) which transmits to a UE (UE, Figure 2) a RRC configuration message including a lower layer triggered mobility configuration (Page 5, translation example 1, step 101, RRC reconfiguration message received as a handover command where the RRC information is a lower layer, i.e. MAC/PHY layer, step 102, also operation 1-2 discussion), wherein the LTM configuration includes a list of at least one candidate configuration information, transmitting to the UE a control message for LTM cell switch execution (Phase 3, page 4 – handover command) including an ID of an LTM candidate configuration and the LTM candidate configuration included in the LTM configuration (page 3, discussion that the RRC reconfiguration information includes mobility control information which includes the target cell identity, i.e. An ID of the LTM candidate); and wherein corresponding to the information associated with the ID of the LTM candidate configuration is applied. (page 6, step 104- RRC layer signaling is performed to complete the handover process based on the previous steps.) Chang does not disclose receiving form the base station, a MAC control element (CE) message for a LTM cell switching procedure.
However, Cui teaches in an analogous art, the use of medium access control (CE) elements which are used to indicate LTM cell switch execution (para 165 and para 181, UE receives the handover command via Layer 1/layer 2 signaling including a Mac CE element). Also note, Figure 8 and para 114-118 which discuss the L1/L2 handover RACH configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a MAC CE element for indication of a cell switch command in order to simplify the handover and RACH procedure as taught by Cui.
Regarding claim 26, Chang discloses a UE (Figure 3) comprising a transceiver (inherent in the wireless communication system) and at least one processor (301) configured to : receive, from a base station, a RRC configuration message including a lower layer triggered mobility configuration (Page 5, translation example 1, step 101, RRC reconfiguration message received as a handover command where the RRC information is a lower layer, i.e. MAC/PHY layer, step 102, also operation 1-2 discussion), receive, a control message for an LTM cell switch execution including information, includes an ID of an LTM candidate configuration and the LTM candidate configuration included in the LTM configuration (page 3, discussion that the RRC reconfiguration information includes mobility control information which includes the target cell identity, i.e. An ID of the LTM candidate and page 4, phase 3 – receiving handover command); and apply a RRC reconfiguration corresponding to the information associated with the ID of the LTM candidate (page 6, step 104- RRC layer signaling is performed to complete the handover process based on the previous steps.) Chang does not disclose receiving form the base station, a MAC control element (CE) message for a LTM cell switching procedure.
However, Cui teaches in an analogous art, the use of medium access control (CE) elements which are used to indicate LTM cell switch execution (para 165 and para 181, UE receives the handover command via Layer 1/layer 2 signaling including a Mac CE element). Also note, Figure 8 and para 114-118 which discuss the L1/L2 handover RACH configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a MAC CE element for indication of a cell switch command in order to simplify the handover and RACH procedure as taught by Cui.
Regarding claim 31, Chang discloses a base station (abstract) comprising a transceiver and processor (inherent in the operation of a wireless handover), wherein the processor is configured to transmit to a UE (UE, Figure 2) a RRC configuration message including a lower layer triggered mobility configuration (Page 5, translation example 1, step 101, RRC reconfiguration message received as a handover command where the RRC information is a lower layer, i.e. MAC/PHY layer, step 102, also operation 1-2 discussion), , transmit to the UE a control message for LTM cell switch execution (Phase 3, page 4 – handover command) including an ID of an LTM candidate configuration and the LTM candidate configuration included in the LTM configuration (page 3, discussion that the RRC reconfiguration information includes mobility control information which includes the target cell identity, i.e. An ID of the LTM candidate); and wherein corresponding to the information associated with the ID of the LTM candidate configuration is applied. (page 6, step 104- RRC layer signaling is performed to complete the handover process based on the previous steps.) Chang does not disclose receiving form the base station, a MAC control element (CE) message for a LTM cell switching procedure.
However, Cui teaches in an analogous art, the use of medium access control (CE) elements which are used to indicate LTM cell switch execution (para 165 and para 181, UE receives the handover command via Layer 1/layer 2 signaling including a Mac CE element). Also note, Figure 8 and para 114-118 which discuss the L1/L2 handover RACH configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a MAC CE element for indication of a cell switch command in order to simplify the handover and RACH procedure as taught by Cui.
Claims 17, 22, 27, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Cui in view of Wu (2023/0388891).
Regarding claims 17, 22, 27, and 32, the combination of Chang and Cui fails to explicitly disclose the transmission of a RRC reconfiguration complete message to the base station. Chang discloses the use of RRC/MAC layer signaling to indicate the completion of the handover process (Page 6, Step 104, RRC layer and MAC layer processing including the cell network temporary identifier).
However, Wu in an analogous art, teaches the use of RRC reconfiguration complete messaging when a handover process is complete (paragraph 115, RRC Reconfiguration complete message including mobility control information, i.e. – cell identification). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a RRC reconfiguration complete message in order to properly signal when the handover process has finished to the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20, 23-25, 28-30, and 33-35 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:
The prior art fails to suggest or disclose the claimed limitations of “identifying whether the UE is unable to comply with a configuration included in the RRC reconfiguration; and in the case the UE is unable to comply with the configuration included in the RRC reconfiguration, continue using a configuration used prior to a detection of an inability to comply with the configuration included in the RRC reconfiguration.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spapis (2026/0075491) discloses failure handling in lower layer mobility handover.
Koskela (12,563,453) discloses use of a MAC CE element in handover.
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 WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights