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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-12, and 14-18, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to the independent claims 1 and 11, the claims have been amended to recite, in part:
“receive, from a source node, a conditional handover (CHO) configuration including at least one conditional handover execution condition, wherein the CHO configuration is generated based on at least one of:
a number of the plurality of UEs in the group of UEs, an associated capability of each of the plurality of UEs, or functionality of the moving node”
The office notes that the disclosure dated 12/13/2023 does not disclose explicitly and or implicitly generating a conditional handover (CHO) configuration based on one of the conditions listed, and does not disclose generating the conditional handover based on anything other supporting a conditional handover. As is known handover is performed based on a one or more conditions, this is known as a handover trigger, and is automatically disclosed to the terminals which need to perform handover. The configuration is generally described as a measurement configuration, which is used at the terminals to determine whether or not handover should be performed.
In the response dated 06/04/2026, the applicant alleges that the disclosure at pg.8, lines 8-18, and fig.3; page 10, lines 24-28 and fig.6, and page 11, lines 16-18 and 23-30 contain the amended subject matter. The office, notes that pg.8 generally describes a handover of a relay and the terminals associated with the relay to a target node based on the target node capability to support the relay and the stations which are attached to the relay. The relay may perform what is known as a “group handover” which consists of the relay performing handover with each of the terminals connected to the relay, without terminals connecting to the relay each having to perform a separate handover procedure, which is discussed in the prior art. The source node may send, based on the relay and the associated terminals needing to perform handover to the target node, a handover request message which includes a plurality of information for allowing the target node to determine whether or not it is capable of supporting the relay and its terminals. The claims are directed to a method for a moving node (i.e. a relay) and the relay does not receive the CHO configuration based on the above listed options as asserted by the applicant in the response.
With regard to pg.10, at the lines mentioned above teaches a handover of the relay (i.e. a IAB UE) to a target node based on a handover decision (605), the source sends a handover request (607) to a one or more targets, the targets forward a handover ACK (611) to the source, the source prepares the IAB-UE for handover by reconfiguring the RRC connection with the source so that the IAB-UE can perform handover to the target. As stated above, the specification as filed does not teach the above claims limitations, and thus the claims are rejected.
With regard to pg.11, similarly, does not disclose the transmission of the CHO based on the above conditions, and thus the claims are rejected.
Dependent claim 3 recites similar features and are rejected for the reasons given above. Each of the dependent claims 2-4, 12, and 14-18 are rejected for their dependency on claims 1 and 11, and for failing to cure the deficiencies therein.
Additionally claim 4 has been amended to recite, in part:
“transmitting, by the source node, an RRCReconfiguration message with an indication of the new PCI to moving node”
The specification as filed does not disclose transmitting, RRCReconfiguration message to with an indication of the new PCI to the moving node. Instead the specification teaches that the new PCI is sent to the UE’s see par.[0041, 0045, 0049-0051, and 0062]. The disclosure does not teach that the source sends the new PCI to the IAB-UE.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Additionally claims 4 and 14, has been amended to recite:
“applying, by the group of UEs, the received RRCReconfiguration; to the plurality of UE’s”.
It is unclear what the applicant is receiving or transmitting to the plurality of UE’s.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 11-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tenny et al. (US 2022/0116841 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Tenny discloses:
a method for supporting conditional handover (par.[0005] describes a conditional handover) for a group of a plurality of user equipments (UE) (par.[0005] describes a conditional handover) connected to a moving node (par.[0036] describes the relay-UE which is a mobile relay, that can move away from a first base station to a second base station), the method comprising:
determining, by a source node (fig.2 depicts a source base station, interpreted as the source node), based on at least one of:
a number of the plurality of UEs in the groups of UEs, an associated capability of each of the plurality of UEs, or a functionality of the moving node (fig.2 the S211 describes the moving node, e.g. the relay-UE forwarding a measurement report, wherein the measurement report details the functionality of the moving node. In particular, the measurement report can indicate when the UE is moving closer to a cell which would be better suited to serving the relay-UE, and further the UE’s attached to the relay-UE. Thus, the measurement report can indicate how useful the relay-UE is in connecting with the serving cell it is attached and its ability to support remote-UEs attached thereto based on the signal quality experienced as it moves throughout the network), whether to generate a conditional handover (CHO) configuration for the plurality of UEs connected to the moving node (fig.2 element S213-214, par.[0061] describes the RRC reconfiguration message generated based on a handover preparation either grouped or separate as shown in S213, par.[0062]);
generating, by the source node, the conditional handover configuration including at least one conditional handover condition (fig.2 depicts the generation of the RRC Reconfiguration Message with CHO configuration);
transmitting, by the source node, the conditional handover (fig.2 depicts in element S214, the transmission of the RRC Reconfiguration Message with the CHO configuration after the message has been generated).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Tenny discloses:
wherein the moving node acts as a UE attached to the source node, and wherein the moving node further acts as a moving network for the groups of UEs connected to the moving node (fig.1 wherein the relay-UE is a UE or attached as a UE to the base station, or may receive Uu and Sidelink information from the base station, while also acting as a mobile relay for a one or more UEs attached to the relay-UE).
Regarding claim 3, Tenny discloses:
wherein determining, by the source node, whether to generate the conditional handover (CHO) configuration is performed further based on a measurement report (fig.2 wherein the measurement report sent from the relay-UE can be used by the source node to determine whether or not send a RRC Reconfiguration message which further includes a CHO).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakker et al. (US 2024/0251031 A1), claims priority to 63/191,807, in view of Tenny et al. (US 2022/0116841 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the disclosure of Bakker teaches:
a method for supporting conditional handover (par.[0008] describes a conditional handover) for a group of a plurality of user equipments (UE) (par.[0064] describes a handover for a group of UE’s see, fig.1a the one or more UE’s which are depicted) connected to a moving node (fig.1a depicts a Mobile IAB node 41), the method comprising:
determining, by a source node (fig.1a depicts a source DU, interpreted as the source node), based on at least one of:
a number of the plurality of UEs in the groups of UEs, an associated capability of each of the plurality of UEs, or a functionality of the moving node (fig.1a and elements 102 and 104 wherein the MT portion of the Mobile IAB sends a measurement report, and the Source DU/CU can identify the context of UEs in order to make conditional handover configuration decision), whether to generate a conditional handover (CHO) configuration for the plurality of UEs connected to the moving node (fig.1a the conditional handover configuration decision, and par.[0063 – 0064]);
While the disclosure of Bakker disclose the conditional handover configuration decision, it may not disclose:
generating, by the source node, the conditional handover configuration including at least one conditional handover condition;
transmitting, by the source node, the conditional handover.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Tenny teaches:
generating, by the source node, the conditional handover configuration including at least one conditional handover condition (fig.2 depicts the generation of the RRC Reconfiguration Message with CHO configuration);
transmitting, by the source node, the conditional handover (fig.2 depicts in element S214, the transmission of the RRC Reconfiguration Message with the CHO configuration after the message has been generated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Bakker for determining by a Source DU/CU whether to configure a conditional handover, with the disclosure of Tenny, which teaches that the Source DU generates and transmits the CHO configuration to the mobile devices.
The motivation/suggestion would have been that relay/Mobile-IAB is communicatively coupled with source DU/CU, and thus, in order for the source DU/CU which generates the configuration to transmit the configuration to the UE’s it must send it via the relay/Mobile-IAB that the UE’s are attached to.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Bakker discloses:
wherein the moving node acts as a UE attached to the source node, and wherein the moving node further acts as a moving network for the groups of UEs connected to the moving node (fig.1a wherein the mobile IAB MT is attached to the source DU/CU).
Regarding claim 3, Bakker discloses:
wherein determining, by the source node, whether to generate the conditional handover (CHO) configuration is performed further based on a measurement report (fig.1a wherein the measurement report sent from the relay-UE can be used by the source node to determine whether or not send a RRC Reconfiguration message which further includes a CHO).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the disclosure of Bakker and Tenny teaches the performing of a handover for a mobile relay, and further discloses:
performing the conditional handover for the moving node based on the determination, wherein the performing the conditional handover for the moving node includes performing the handover the group of UEs connected with the moving node (see fig.2 grouped or separate at element S213).
applying the conditional handover configuration (fig.1a element 104 preparation for the UE) for the moving node (fig.1a mobile IAB-Node);
determining whether a physical cell ID (PCI) for the moving node or any configuration associated with the source node or the group of UEs, is changed (fig.1a the Source DU/CU receives from the target new IAB_PCI);
transmitting, by the source node, an RRCReconfiguration message with an indication of new PCI to the moving node (fig.1a element 112);
applying, by the group of UEs, the received RRCReconfiguration from the source node to the plurality of UEs (fig.1b the IAB DU41 sends the received RRCReconfiguration message to the one or more UEs wherein the UE’s apply the configuration in the reconfiguration message); and
sending by the group of UEs an radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message to the source node (fig. 1c element 134 UE handover completion for CHO UEs).
Claim(s) 15, and 17-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakker and Tenny as applied to independent claims 1 and 11, in view of Jeon et al. (US 2012/0003962 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Bakker and Tenny discloses:
performing admission control for the group of UEs (Tenny: see fig.2 wherein the admission control is performed during CHO for the target gNodeB), but may not disclose:
receiving information indicating whether at least a subset of the plurality of UEs or the moving node is supported by at least one target node.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Jeon teaches:
receiving information indicating whether at least a subset of the plurality of UEs or the moving node is supported by at least one target node (par.[0094] which recites, in part, “Next, the target eNode B 908 determines whether to approve the handover for part or all of the mobile relay station and the UEs, using the information of the mobile relay station and the UEs recorded in the handover request message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Tenny for group handover, with the disclosure Jeon for providing a group handover for a one or more relays, and the UE’s attached to that relay. The motivation/suggestion would have been that a Target eNB/gNB may or may not be able to support the handover of the group, and by providing measurement information to the target the target can determine whether or not it can support the handover one the one or more stations.
Regarding claim 17, Jeon discloses:
based on a group of UE’s performing handover, the controller is configured to apply the conditional handover configuration (fig.4 element 418 via the handover response (HO_RSP), provided by the target eNB to the serving eNB, wherein the target eNB accepts the handover of the MRS along with each of the MSs associated with the MRS, fig.6 element 611 – 613, par.[0094] which recites, in part, “Next, the target eNode B 908 determines whether to approve the handover for part or all of the mobile relay station and the UEs, using the information of the mobile relay station and the UEs recorded in the handover request message.”. Also, fig.8 and par.[0015] and fig.9, par.[0043]) based on information indicating the number of the plurality of UEs (par.[0055] which teaches that the serving BS sends request to the MS1 and MS2 based on the HO_REQ sent by the MRS. The serving eNB element 406 transmits the HO_REQ to a one or more target eNB, wherein the HO_REQ comprises the information on the MS1 and MS2, see “In so doing, the serving BS 406 piggybacks and transmits the authentication request (Pre-AUTH_REQ) message received from the MSs 400 and 402 on the handover request (HOP-REQ).” The HO_REQ includes the identifiers of each of the MSs connected with the MRS, “Herein, the handover request (HO-REQ) message includes the identifier MSID…….. of the MSs belonging to the MRS 404. By providing the above information the source eNB informs the target eNB of the number of terminals attached to the MRS) and associated capability of each of the plurality of UEs (par.[0055] which recites, in part, “Herein, the handover request (HO-REQ) message includes the identifier MSID, an estimated time to HandOver (HO), a required Bandwidth (BW), and Quality of Service (QoS) information of the MSs belonging to the MRS 404, and additionally includes the identifier RSID, an estimated time to HO, a required BW, and QoS information of the MRS 404”. That is, the HO-Req includes capability of the MRS, along with the MSs which are connected with the MRS).
Regarding claim 18, Jeon discloses:
receiving an acknowledgement message associated with handover of the group of UEs (fig.9 element 916, and par.[0094] which recites, in part, “the target eNode B transmit a handover request ACK message indicating the handover approval to the serving eNode B 906 in step 916.”) and apply the conditional handover configuration based on the acknowledgement message (par.[0099] as discussed above, the source node forwards the information in the ACK message in the RRCReconfiguration message to the relay and associated User Equipments. Also, par.[0100 – 0103] describes the setup of resources and communications channels between the relay and group of UEs with the new target base station).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenny as applied to independent claims 1 and 11, in view of Pan et al. (US 2014/0073330 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the disclosure of Bakker and Tenny teaches transmitting a conditional handover configuration, but may not disclose:
receiving a message indicating a number of UEs supported by at least one target node and determine whether to apply the conditional handover configuration based on the received message.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Pan teaches:
transmitting, by the target node, a conditional handover message indicating the number of the UEs supported by the target node (par.[0049] which recites, in part, “the chain handover response will be a chain handover request NACK message ("C-handover NACK") in step S211, in which the chain handover response may include a unsuccessful flag, the amount of j mobile relays it can accept (wherein j.gtoreq.0), and a confirmation of Tc timer list.”); and
determine whether to apply the conditional handover configuration based on the received message (par.[0049] which recites, in part, “The source DeNB 164 that receives the chain handover request NACK message will perform handover procedures for first j mobile relays by the operation of chain handover control function in step S213. In one embodiment, for the rest of the mobile relays which is/are not allowed to perform the chain handover procedure will receive a conventional measurement control from the source DeNB 164 for performing the conventional measurement and handover as usual.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Bakker and Tenny for providing a relay handover method, with the disclosure of Pan for providing an acceptance or rejection of the relay by a target node. The motivation/suggestion would have been to properly handover a relay to a target node that is capable of supporting relay devices.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wu et al. (US 2023/0403617 A1) “Managing Integrated Access and Backhaul Mobility”
Zhu et al. (US 2023/037110 A1) “Communication Method Applied to Integrated Access and Backhaul IAB System and Communication Apparatus”
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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights