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 .
Election/Restrictions
Upon further review, the examiner determined that the claim sets were not a burden and a restriction/election is no longer required. The restriction has been withdrawn.
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)(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) 1-2, 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaidya et al. (Vaidya), U.S. Publication No. 2020/0260342.
Regarding Claim 1, Vaidya discloses an apparatus (i.e., base station; see
figure 5) comprising at least one processor (i.e., processor 502; see figure 5), and at least one memory (i.e., memory 510; see figure 5) including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor (i.e., the memory 510 is a computer program product comprising a computer readable medium comprising code, e.g., individual code for each component, for causing at least one computer, e.g., processor 502, to implement the functions to which the components correspond; see paragraph [0115]), to cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication indicating one or more time windows, during which a handover is allowed to be initiated (i.e., first validity timer having a duration corresponding to the first validity time indicated in the first handoff message. the serving base station sends the first handoff message to the first target base station; see paragraphs [0063], [0067] and figure 2C);
evaluate whether one or more conditions for the handover are fulfilled within the one or more time windows (i.e., the first target base station determines if handoff of the UE to the first target base station was successful or unsuccessful.; see paragraph [0069] and figure 2D); and
initiate the handover during one of the one or more time windows, if the one or more conditions are fulfilled (i.e., the first target base station operates as a point of network attachment for the first UE.; see paragraph [0071] and figure 2D).
Regarding Claim 2, Vaidya discloses wherein the handover is delayed to be
initiated during the one of the one or more time windows, if the one or more conditions are fulfilled outside of the one or more time windows (see paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 5, Vaidya discloses wherein the periodicity is indicated as a
number of time windows per second (see paragraphs [0055] and [0073]).
Regarding Claim 11, Vaidya discloses wherein the one or more time windows
comprise at least a first time window, a second time window and a third time window; wherein a first duration of the first time window is different than a second duration of the second time window (see figure 11), and/or wherein a first time interval between the first time window and the second time window is different than a second time interval between the second time window and the third time window.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya in view of Sabouri-Sichani et al. (Sabouri-Sichani), U.S. Publication No. 2021/0022057.
Regarding Claim 3, Vaidya discloses the apparatus as described above.
Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the initiating of the handover is delayed, if the one or more conditions are fulfilled while an uplink user plane data transmission is incomplete or a downlink user plane data reception is incomplete. Sabouri-Sichani discloses wherein the initiating of the handover is delayed, if the one or more conditions are fulfilled while an uplink user plane data transmission is incomplete or a downlink user plane data reception is incomplete (see paragraph [0097]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Sabouri-Sichani’s invention with Vaidya’s invention for improving new mobility enhancement solutions as described throughout Sabouri-Sichani.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya in view of Center et al. (Center), U.S. Patent No. 6,453,156.
Regarding Claim 4, Vaidya discloses the apparatus as described above.
Vaidya further discloses wherein the one or more time windows are indicated with a periodicity (see figure 11) and a duration (see paragraph [0009]) of the one or more time windows. Vaidya fails to disclose a phase offset. Center discloses a phase offset (see col. 6, lines 19-25). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Center’s invention with Vaidya’s invention for improving communication quality as described throughout Center.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya in view of Tacer et al. (Tacer), U.S. Patent No. 11,985,179.
Regarding Claim 6, Vaidya discloses the apparatus as described above. Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the number of time windows per second corresponds with a frames-per-second value associated with a service. Tacer discloses wherein the number of time windows per second corresponds with a frames-per-second value associated with a service (see figure 2D). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Tacer’s invention with Vaidya’s invention to improve a voice quality during a communication session as described in Tacer’s abstract.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya and Center in view of Alfarhan et al. (Alfarhan), U.S. Publication No. 2023/0097142.
Regarding Claim 7, Vaidya and Center disclose the apparatus as described above. Vaidya and Center fails to disclose wherein the periodicity and/or the duration is based on a subcarrier spacing of an active bandwidth part used by the apparatus. Alfarhan discloses wherein the periodicity and/or the duration is based on a subcarrier spacing (see paragraph [0388]) of an active bandwidth part used by the apparatus (see paragraphs [0086] and [0087]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Alfarhan’s invention with Vaidya’s and Center’s invention for reporting reliable information as described throughout Alfarhan.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya in view of Kim et al. (Kim), U.S. Publication No. 2019/0268819.
Regarding Claim 10, Vaidya discloses the apparatus as described above.
Vaidya further discloses wherein the indication indicating the one or more time windows is received in a message, wherein the message further indicates the one or more conditions for the handover (see paragraph [0141]). Vaidya fails to disclose radio resource control reconfiguration message. Kim discloses radio resource control reconfiguration message (see paragraph [0365]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kim’s invention with Vaidya’s invention for developing an improved communication system meeting wireless data traffic demands (see paragraph [0005] of Kim).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya.
Regarding Claim 13, Vaidya discloses an apparatus (i.e., serving base station
300; see figure 3/source eNB 1304 in figure 12A) comprising at least one processor (i.e., processor 302; see figure 3), and at least one memory (i.e., memory 310; see figure 3) including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor (shown in figure 3), to cause the apparatus to:
determine one or more time windows (i.e., the source eNB 1224 determines, e.g., based on target candidate loading information, UE reports regarding the source eNB 1304, UE reports regarding target candidate, and/or other criteria, e.g., UE 1302 priority level and/or a type of data traffic being communicated by UE 1302, a first validity time and generates a first conditional handover request message including said determined first validity time, said first conditional handover request message to be send to target candidate; see paragraph [0140] and figure 12A); and
indicate, to the terminal device, that the terminal device is allowed to initiate a handover during the one or more time windows, if one or more conditions are fulfilled (i.e., source eNB 1204 generates and sends a conditional handover command 1243 to UE 1302 which is received in step 1244. In step 1245 UE 1202 determines, that a provided target threshold is met with regard to candidate eNB 1308, and UE 1302 decides to initiate handover to the target cell of eNB 1 1308; see paragraph [0143] and figure 12B).
Although, Vaidya does not specifically state during which no downlink user plane data is expected to be transmitted to a terminal device, and during which no uplink user plane data is expected to be received from the terminal device, Vaidya does not teach against it. Figures 12A and 12B do not show, teach or describe downlink user plane data as expected to be transmitted to a terminal device and uplink user plane data as expected to be received from the terminal device. Therefore, it can be considered as Vaidya disclosing during which no downlink user plane data is expected to be transmitted to a terminal device, and during which no uplink user plane data is expected to be received from the terminal device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Vaidya’s teaching for efficient handover removing unused resources as described in Vaidya’s background.
Regarding Claim 14, Vaidya discloses wherein the indicating causes the terminal device to initiate the handover during one of the one or more time windows (see figure 12B).
Regarding Claim 16, Vaidya discloses wherein the periodicity is indicated as a number of time windows per second (see paragraphs [0055] and [0073]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya in view of Center.
Regarding Claim 15, Vaidya discloses the apparatus as described above.
Vaidya further discloses wherein the one or more time windows are indicated with a periodicity (see figure 11) and a duration (see paragraph [0009]) of the one or more time windows. Vaidya fails to disclose a phase offset. Center discloses a phase offset (see col. 6, lines 19-25). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Center’s invention with Vaidya’s invention for improving communication quality as described throughout Center.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya in view of Tacer.
Regarding Claim 17, Vaidya discloses the apparatus as described above. Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the number of time windows per second corresponds with a frames-per-second value associated with a service. Tacer discloses wherein the number of time windows per second corresponds with a frames-per-second value associated with a service (see figure 2D). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Tacer’s invention with Vaidya’s invention to improve a voice quality during a communication session as described in Tacer’s abstract.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya and Tacer in view of Hannu et al. (Hannu), U.S. Publication No. 2019/0268814.
Regarding Claim 18, Vaidya and Tacer disclose the apparatus as described
above. Vaidya and Tacer fail to disclose wherein the downlink user plane data and the uplink user plane data are associated with the service. Hannu discloses wherein the downlink user plane data and the uplink user plane data are associated with the service (see paragraph [0087]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Hannu’s invention with Vaidya’s and Tacer’s invention for a more reliable connection as described throughout Hannu.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya and Center in view of Alfarhan.
Regarding Claim 19, Vaidya and Center disclose the apparatus as described above. Vaidya and Center fails to disclose wherein the periodicity and/or the duration is based on a subcarrier spacing of an active bandwidth part used by the apparatus. Alfarhan discloses wherein the periodicity and/or the duration is based on a subcarrier spacing (see paragraph [0388]) of an active bandwidth part used by the apparatus (see paragraphs [0086] and [0087]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Alfarhan’s invention with Vaidya’s and Center’s invention for reporting reliable information as described throughout Alfarhan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 20-21 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 SHANTELL LAKETA HEIBER whose telephone number is (571)272-0886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Addy, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHANTELL L HEIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights