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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 29 recites following limitations:
means for receiving, from a source network entity, a handover message…
means for performing, based on the handover message, a handover procedure to switch from the source network entity to a target network entity.
Specification discloses sufficient structure to perform the recited functions, see paras 7-8, 10-11 and fig.2.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21-25, 27, 28 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Li et al US 2022/0053385 A1.
Claims 1, 14, 27 and 29:
Li discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, based at least in part on information stored in the one or more memories (See figs. 6 and 11, processor and memory), configured to cause the UE to: receive, from a source network entity, a handover message that includes information identifying at least one of a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state, a quasi co-location (QCL) information parameter, or a spatial relation (See para 71, “an indication to activate one of the TCI-state can be included in the handover command…”); and perform, based on the handover message, a handover procedure to switch from the source network entity to a target network entity (See para 22, handover from source to target cell).
Claims 3, 16, 28 and 30:
Li discloses that the information identifies the TCI state (See para 71, “an indication to activate one of the TCI-state can be included in the handover command…”).
Claims 5 and 18:
Li discloses that the information identifies the spatial relation (See paras 52-53, spatial Rx parameter in handoverCommandMessage).
Claims 6 and 19:
Li discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: determine, based on the information, one or more of: first one or more beams for communication with the source network entity, or second one or more beams for communication with the target network entity (See paras 22 and 71-73, TCI-state indicates beam for target cell), and wherein, to perform the handover procedure, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: perform, based on the handover message, the handover procedure with one or more of the first one or more beams for communication with the source network entity or the second one or more beams for communication with the target network entity (See paras 22 and 71-73, TCI-state indicates beam for target cell for use for handover).
Claims 8 and 21:
Li discloses perform, based on the handover message, the handover procedure with one or more beams explicitly indicated to the UE (See paras 22 and 71-73, TCI-state indicates beam for target cell for use for handover).
Claims 9 and 22:
Li discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
transmit measurement information to the source network entity (See para 38, sends measurement to the source cell), and
wherein the one or more beams are explicitly indicated to the UE after the measurement information is transmitted to the source network entity (See paras 22, 38 and 71-73, sends measurement to the source cell and receives beam for target cell).
Claims 10 and 23:
Li discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: transmit a measurement report, and wherein, to receive the handover message, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: receive the handover message after transmitting the measurement report (See paras 22, 38 and 71-73, sends measurement to the source cell and receives beam for target cell).
Claims 11 and 24:
Li discloses that the handover message indicates that the UE is to handover from the source network entity to the target network entity (See paras 22 and 71-73, HO from source to target cell), and wherein the handover message includes beam information that includes the information identifying at least one of the TCI state, the QCL, or the spatial relation (See paras 22 and 71-73, TCI-state in the HO message).
Claims 12 and 25:
Li discloses that the handover message includes beam information that includes the information identifying at least one of the TCI state, the QCL, or the spatial relation (See paras 22 and 71-73, TCI-state in the HO message), and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: select, using the beam information, a beam to use to perform the handover procedure (See paras 22 and 71-73, beam for target cell).
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) 2, 13, 15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Li et al US 2022/0053385 A1 in view of Deenoo et al. US 2021/0168678 A1.
Claims 2 and 15:
Li doesn’t disclose perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure with the target network entity.
Deenoo discloses perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure with the target network entity (See para 87, “when a RACH is completed in the target cell of the handover”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Li with the teachings of B to improve the method disclosed by Li by including the aforementioned feature. The motivation to combine would have been to ensure efficient transmission and resource allocation.
Claims 13 and 26:
Li doesn’t disclose that the handover procedure includes a random access channel (RACH) procedure with the target network entity.
Deenoo discloses that the handover procedure includes a random access channel (RACH) procedure with the target network entity (See para 87, “when a RACH is completed in the target cell of the handover”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Li with the teachings of B to improve the method disclosed by Li by including the aforementioned feature. The motivation to combine would have been to ensure efficient transmission and resource allocation.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al US 2022/0053385 A1 in view of Kim et al. US 2020/0153500 A1.
Claims 4 and 17:
Li doesn’t disclose that the information identifies the QCL information parameter.
Kim discloses that the information identifies the QCL information parameter (See para 213, “in the handover situation, the serving base station may transmit QCL information of the candidate (neighbor) base station to the terminal using the above information…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Li with the teachings of B to improve the method disclosed by Li by including the aforementioned feature. The motivation to combine would have been to enable the UE use corresponding QCLed relationship for measurement purposes and save network resources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHIM S BHATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
HASHIM S. BHATTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475