DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA on 28 November 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN20211598842.7A application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
A configuration module that obtains in line 4 of independent claim 15.
A command module that receives in line 8 of independent claim 15.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such corresponding structure, as described in ¶0024 of the specification, is “circuits, software, firmware, or a combination of them.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 13-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Damnjanovic (US 20240179602 A1).
Re. Claim 1 and 15, Damnjanovic teaches A user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2 120), comprising: a transceiver that transmits and receives radio frequency (RF) signal in a wireless network(Fig. 2 252a); a configuration module that obtains a layer-1/layer-2 triggered mobility (LTM) configuration(See abstract), wherein the UE is connected with a first distributed unit (DU) of a source cell in the wireless network(See Fig. 1 and ¶0035 - A network node 110 may include, for example, an NR base station, an LTE base station, a Node B, an eNB (e.g., in 4G), a gNB (e.g., in 5G), an access point, a transmission reception point (TRP), a DU, an RU, a CU…); a command module that receives a cell switch command from the wireless network, wherein the cell switch command indicates to switch from the source cell to a target cell(¶0088 - A UE and a network node may perform a handover (sometimes abbreviated HO) to switch a primary serving cell of the UE from a source cell to a target cell. Handover can be triggered by a UE (such as by transmitting a measurement report identifying a suitable target cell) or a network node (such as based at least in part on a load condition at the source cell and/or the target cell).); and an LTM controller that starts an LTM timer to control an LTM procedure to handover from the source cell to the target cell based on the LTM configuration(¶0116 - the UE may activate a timer based on the source cell satisfying the at least one RLF condition and/or based on the UE accessing the target cell due to the source cell RLF); and triggers a recovery procedure when the LTM timer expires(¶0116 - if the timer expires before the UE successfully performs a cell switch (e.g., an SpCell switch), the UE may declare RLF and perform an L3 handover and/or reestablishment.).
Re. Claim 3 and 17, Damnjanovic teaches claim 1 and 15.
Damnjanovic further teaches sending LTM procedure success indication to the wireless network and stopping the LTM timer when the LTM procedure succeeds(¶0124 - the UE 502 may reset the timer based on completion of a successful cell handover to the target cell. In some aspects, the completion of the successful cell handover to the target cell may be based on at least one of a successful completion of a random access procedure associated with the target cell, reception of DCI in response to an uplink communication to a network node associated with the target cell, reception of a MAC CE in response to an uplink communication to a network node associated with the target cell, or reception of an RRC reconfiguration complete message from a network node associated with the target cell.).
Re. Claim 7 and 18, Damnjanovic teaches claim 1 and 15.
Damnjanovic further teaches wherein the recovery procedure performs an RRC re-establishment(¶0104 - the UE 405 may perform cell selection to recover from RLF, and may perform an RRC connection reestablishment procedure.).
Re. Claim 8, Damnjanovic teaches claim 7.
Damnjanovic further teaches ranking a plurality of candidate cells to select a best cell for the RRC re-establishment(¶0104 - For example, as part of cell selection for RLF recovery, the UE 405 may scan a last camped cell and cells from the UE's acquisition database (ACQ DB). If none of the cells in the ACQ DB are suitable for cell selection, the UE 405 may perform a full scan and the RLF recovery may be delayed).
Re. Claim 13, Damnjanovic teaches claim 1.
Damnjanovic further teaches wherein the LTM procedure succeeds when a random access (RA) to the target cell succeeds(¶0116 - A successful SpCell switch may include a successful completion of a random access procedure on the target LTM cell).
Re. Claim 14, Damnjanovic teaches claim 1.
Damnjanovic further teaches wherein RA is not needed for the LTM procedure, and wherein the LTM timer is not started(See Fig. 5 steps 510-518 and ¶0116 - A successful SpCell switch may include a successful completion of a random access procedure on the target LTM cell, reception of a DCI (e.g. DL/UL grant) or MAC CE in response to an uplink signal transmission (e.g., a RACH message or a scheduling request (SR) and/or sounding reference signal (SRS) if a random access procedure is not performed), and/or reception, by the UE, of an RRC reconfiguration complete message from the network node. ).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic in view of Huang et al. (US 20240373304 A1), hereinafter Huang.
Re. Claim 2 and 16, Damnjanovic teaches claim 1 and 15.
However, Damnjanovic fails to explicitly disclose wherein the LTM timer is a radio resource control (RRC) timer for LTM, a MAC timer for LTM, or a modified T304 timer.
Yet, in the same field of endeavor of improving wireless communications, Huang teaches wherein the LTM timer is a radio resource control (RRC) timer for LTM, a MAC timer for LTM, or a modified T304 timer(¶0136 - starts a timer for L1/L2 mobility (e.g. a MAC layer timer or a RRC layer timer, like T304)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Damnjanovic to include the RRC or MAC timer for LTM as taught by Huang. The motivation to do so is that it can reduce the mobility interruption time and improve robustness of a handover, as noted by Huang (¶0003).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic in view of Zhou et al. (US 20220014991 A1), hereinafter Zhou.
Re. Claim 4, Damnjanovic teaches claim 3.
However, Damnjanovic does not teach wherein the LTM procedure success indication is sent to the wireless network explicitly through a new RRC message, a MAC control element (CE), or a downlink control information (DCI).
Yet, in the same field of endeavor of improving wireless communications, Zhou teaches wherein the LTM procedure success indication is sent to the wireless network explicitly through a new RRC message, a MAC control element (CE), or a downlink control information (DCI)(¶0031 - The UE may also send a response indicating the receipt of the success message to a target and/or source PCI. The indication of receipt may be conveyed through a variety of manners such as a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble, uplink reference signal, uplink control information (UCI), or a MAC control element (MAC-CE).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Damnjanovic to include the LTM procedure success indication in a MAC control element, as taught by Zhou. The motivation to do so is that it allows indicating to old and/or new Physical Cell Identifiers that the handover was a success, as noted by Zhou (¶0085).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic in view of Hao (US 20210314833 A1).
Re. Claim 9 and 19, Damnjanovic teaches claim 8 and 18.
Yet, in the same field of endeavor of improving wireless communications, Hao teaches wherein the recovery procedure(Fig. 1 S101) performs a cell selection and attempts random access (RA) to one or more candidate cells (Fig. 1 S102 and ¶0041 - The conditional handover command information may include a handover trigger condition. When a cell satisfies the handover trigger condition, the UE may initiate a cell handover to the cell, that is, to perform random access to the cell.)before performing the RRC re-establishment (Fig. 2 S201 and ¶0072 - a reason for triggering the RRC reestablishment may be a Radio Link Failure (RLF) or a cell handover failure), and wherein the RA is a contention-based RA (CBRA) or a contention free RA (CFRA).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Damnjanovic to include the cell selection and attempted Random Access before the RRC Re-establishment, as taught by Hao. The motivation to do so is that it may ensure that the UE can be handed over to an optimal target cell, which may avoid frequent handovers of the UE, improve efficiency of cell handover, and ensure communication quality, as noted by Hao (¶0024).
Re. Claim 10 and 20, Damnjanovic and Hao teach claim 9 and 19.
However, Damnjanovic fails to teach wherein a maximum number of candidate cells for RA attempting is configured by the wireless network.
Yet, in the same field of endeavor of improving wireless communications, Hao teaches wherein a maximum number of candidate cells for RA attempting is configured by the wireless network(¶0014 - a conditional handover command receiving circuitry configured to receive conditional handover command information from a base station… ¶0015 - Optionally, the conditional handover command information includes the priority information, and the priority information includes identities and corresponding priority levels of the plurality of candidate target cells ).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Damnjanovic to include the network configuring a maximum number of candidate cells for RA attempting, as taught by Hao. The motivation to do so is that it may ensure that the UE can be handed over to an optimal target cell, which may avoid frequent handovers of the UE, improve efficiency of cell handover, and ensure communication quality, as noted by Hao (¶0024).
Re. Claim 11, Damnjanovic teaches Claim 1.
However, Damnjanovic fails to teach wherein the recovery procedure is controlled by a preconfigured counter.
Yet, in the same field of endeavor of improving wireless communications, Hao teaches wherein the recovery procedure is controlled by a preconfigured counter(¶0020 - perform a cell selection procedure if RRC reestablishment is triggered; and a target access cell determining circuitry configured to determine a target access cell from a plurality of cells searched in the cell selection procedure based on priority information, and perform the RRC reestablishment in the target access cell, wherein the priority information includes priority levels of the plurality of cells used for conditional handover. ¶0025 - the conditional handover command information includes the priority information, or the UE receives from the base station the RRC signaling which includes the priority information.).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Damnjanovic to include the recovery procedure controlled by a preconfigured counter, as taught by Hao. The motivation to do so is that it may ensure that the UE can be handed over to an optimal target cell, which may avoid frequent handovers of the UE, improve efficiency of cell handover, and ensure communication quality, as noted by Hao (¶0024).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic in view of Zhou, and further in view of Dong et al. (US 20250048197 A1), hereinafter Dong.
Re. Claim 5, Damnjanovic and Zhou teach claim 4.
However, Damnjanovic and Zhou fail to teach wherein the LTM procedure success indication contains a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI).
Yet, in the same field of endeavor of improving wireless communications, Dong teaches wherein the LTM procedure success indication contains a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI)( ¶0268-0270 - After the UE performs the various fast serving cell change operations above, it may transmit a notification of the completion of the fast serving cell change operations to the target serving cell. Such notification, for example, may be transmitted in at least one of the following formats: MAC CE like notification including one of: C-RNTI MAC CE.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Damnjanovic and Zhou to include the success indication containing a C-RNTI, as taught by Dong. The motivation to do so is that it may provide fast, efficient, and low latency cell change with minimal user-plane data flow interruption, as noted by Dong (¶0066).
Re. Claim 6, Damnjanovic teaches claim 3.
However, Damnjanovic does not teach wherein the LTM procedure success indication is informed to the wireless network implicitly, and wherein the implicit indication is delivered via a HARQ ACK for a first downlink transmission, a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission, or a first uplink (UL) transmission through either a PUSCH or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH).
Yet, in the same field of endeavor of improving wireless communications, Dong teaches wherein the LTM procedure success indication is informed to the wireless network implicitly, and wherein the implicit indication is delivered via a HARQ ACK for a first downlink transmission, a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission, or a first uplink (UL) transmission through either a PUSCH or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)(¶0268-273 - After the UE performs the various fast serving cell change operations above, it may transmit a notification of the completion of the fast serving cell change operations to the target serving cell. Such notification, for example, may be transmitted in at least one of the following formats: …. UCI, for example, scheduling Request. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Damnjanovic and Zhou to include the implicit success indication delivered through a Physical Uplink Shared Channel Transmission, as taught by Dong. The motivation to do so is that it may provide fast, efficient, and low latency cell change with minimal user-plane data flow interruption, as noted by Dong (¶0066).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240334270 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Re. Claim 12, Damnjanovic teaches claim 1.
However, Damnjanovic fails to teach wherein the recovery procedure sends a recovery request to a candidate cell when a dedicated PUCCH is configured for the candidate cell and uplink is synchronized with the candidate cell.
Yet, in the same field of endeavor of improving wireless communications, Zhang teaches wherein the recovery procedure sends a recovery request to a candidate cell(See Fig 8 806/808 ) when a dedicated PUCCH is configured for the candidate cell and uplink is synchronized with the candidate cell(¶0079 - there may be a SpCell specific configuration (e.g. SpCellConfig, reconfiguration WithSync, PUCCH-Config) in the candidate cell configuration that can be used to distinguish whether the candidate cell can be activated as SpCell or SCell. ¶0124-0128 - Referring back to FIG. 8, the L1/L2 mobility may be triggered by the user equipment (UE). The UE starts evaluating the execution/triggering condition(s) for the candidate cell in block 806. If at least one candidate cell satisfies the corresponding execution condition(s), the UE connects to the target candidate cell in block 808 based on the stored cell configuration. The L1/L2 mobility execution may be triggered when at least one of the following conditions is met: … upon detection radio link failure (RLF) or beam failure recovery (BFR) on the SpCell/serving cell). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Damnjanovic to include sending the recovery request to a candidate cell when a dedicated PUCCH is configured for the candidate cell and uplink is synchronized with the candidate cell, as taught by Zhang. The motivation to do so is that it can reduce the mobility interruption time and improve robustness of a handover, as noted by Zhang (¶0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LANE RUSTERHOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5984. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Gary Mui can be reached on (571) 270-1420. 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.
/A.L.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/GARY MUI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights