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 .
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 12/13/2023. Claims 1-18, 26, 30 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11,12,16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 16: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitation, “determining the SHR configuration information, the SHR configuration information associated with the communication device” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “a first network node” and “a second network node” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (an access network device) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “receiving a request for SHR configuration information from a first network node, the first network node being a source node for a handover of a communication device …” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “transmitting the SHR configuration information to the first network node” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity).
The additional element, “successful handover report” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (handover) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine handover report.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “receiving a request for SHR configuration information from a first network node, the first network node being a source node for a handover of a communication device and the second network node being a target node for the handover of the communication device” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (handover/network communication) using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 17-18 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim11 (claim 5+11) is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitation, “determining the SHR configuration based on the SHR configuration information to include a triggering condition selected by the first network node” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “a first network node” and “a second network node” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (an access network device) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “transmitting a request for SHR configuration information to a second network node, the first network node being a source node for a handover of a communication device…” and “receiving the SHR configuration information from the second network node, the SHR configuration information associated with the communication device” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “transmitting a SHR configuration to the communication device” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity).
The additional element, “successful handover report” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (handover) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine handover report.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitations, “transmitting a request for SHR configuration information to a second network node, the first network node being a source node for a handover of a communication device…” and “receiving the SHR configuration information from the second network node, the SHR configuration information associated with the communication device” are just transmitting/ receiving data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (handover/network communication) using a generic computer.
Dependent claim 12 (claim 5+12) is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitation, “determining the SHR configuration based on the SHR configuration information to include the triggering condition selected by the second network node” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “a first network node” and “a second network node” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (an access network device) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “transmitting a request for SHR configuration information to a second network node, the first network node being a source node for a handover of a communication device…” and “receiving the SHR configuration information from the second network node, the SHR configuration information associated with the communication device” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “transmitting a SHR configuration to the communication device” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity).
The additional element, “successful handover report” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (handover) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine handover report.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitations, “transmitting a request for SHR configuration information to a second network node, the first network node being a source node for a handover of a communication device…” and “receiving the SHR configuration information from the second network node, the SHR configuration information associated with the communication device” are just transmitting/ receiving data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (handover/network communication) using a generic computer.
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)(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) 1,2,5,8-11,13,16,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2024/0215099).
Regarding claim 1:
Chang discloses a system and method performed by a communication device for configuration of a successful handover report, SHR (abstract; see figures), the method comprising:
receiving a SHR configuration from a first network node, the SHR configurations including a triggering condition (para 6, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {SHR-related configuration may at least comprise a triggering condition…]; fig 1 [source and target base stations]; figures 1-3; para 37,45);
applying the SHR configuration (para 42 {initiating, by the UE, a conditional handover to the selected cell means that the UE applies a conditional reconfiguration (CondRRCReconfig) stored thereon and associated with the selected cell, and performs a handover operation to the cell according to the configuration …}); and
responsive to the triggering condition being satisfied during a handover of the communication device from the first network node to a second network node, storing the SHR generated based on the SHR configuration (note:[this is a conditional/contingent element of the claim, only executed/implement if the condition is satisfied, thus not required as a positively recited limitation of the claim] para 6 {SHR-related configuration … triggering the UE to record an SHR}; para 45 {performs the operation of recording the SHR…}; para 56,72; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 2:
Chang discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein applying the SHR configuration further comprises storing the SHR configuration (para 42-46; para 54 {SHR-related configuration can still be maintained on the UE}; para 64 {SHR-related configuration at least includes an SHR triggering condition for triggering the UE to record a handover information SHR of the present handover. Preferably, the SHR-related configuration is included in an inter-node RRC message}; and see throughout).
Regarding claim 5:
Chang discloses a system and method performed by a first network node for configuration of a successful handover report, SHR (abstract; figures), the method comprising:
transmitting a request for SHR configuration information to a second network node, the first network node being a source node for a handover of a communication device and the second network node being a target node for the handover of the communication device (figures; para 12 {source cell transmitting a handover request message to the target cell, the handover request message comprising a successful handover report (SHR)-related configuration}; para 64; figures);
receiving the SHR configuration information from the second network node, the SHR configuration information associated with the communication device (para 12 {target cell transmitting to the source cell a handover request response message …comprising the SHR-related configuration}[target is transmitting and source is receiving]; figs 2-4; para 64); and
transmitting a SHR configuration to the communication device (para 65-67 {delivering … the handover request message to the UE}; figures; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 8:
Chang discloses all of the subject matter as described above and where receiving at least one of [note: optional language requires one of the elements]: an indication of whether the second network node is capable of SHR retrieval; an indication of a triggering condition selected by the second network node (para 36 {indicating, for example, a cause(s) of successful handover information reporting being triggered (that is, which triggering condition is met)}; para 64,75,88; and throughout disclosure); and an indication of an amount of time the communication device is to maintain the SHR configuration after the handover.
Regarding claim 9:
Chang discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein transmitting the request for SHR configuration information via a Xn interface as part of preparation for the handover (para 64; and throughout).
Regarding claim 10:
Chang discloses all of the subject matter as described above and receiving the SHR configuration information via a Xn interface as part of preparation for the handover (para 64; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 11:
Chang discloses all of the subject matter as described above and determining the SHR configuration based on the SHR configuration information to include a triggering condition selected by the first network node (para 56 [timer information of source]; para 60 [triggering condition as timer value, associated with source]; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 13:
Chang discloses all of the subject matter as described above and subsequent to transmitting the SHR configuration, receiving a SHR associated with the communication device (para 56; para 65 [source receives SHR] and throughout).
Regarding claim 16:
Chang discloses a system and method performed by a second network node for configuration of a successful handover report, SHR (figures; abstract), the method comprising:
receiving a request for SHR configuration information from a first network node, the first network node being a source node for a handover of a communication device and the second network node being a target node for the handover of the communication device (para 12 {source cell transmitting a handover request message to the target cell, the handover request message comprising a successful handover report (SHR)-related configuration} [source is transmitting and target node is receiving]; fig 1 [source and target nodes]; para 64,65; figs);
determining the SHR configuration information, the SHR configuration information associated with the communication device (para 6-9; para 12 {target cell transmitting to the source cell a handover request response message …comprising the SHR-related configuration}[target is transmitting and source is receiving]; figs 2-4; para 64); and
transmitting the SHR configuration information to the first network node (para 65 {including, by the target cell, the received SHR-related configuration in a handover command (an RRC reconfiguration message generated by a target base station), and including the handover command in a handover request response message and transmitting same to the source cell}; para 66-67; figures; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 30:
Chang discloses all of the subject matter as described above for claim 1, and further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein that are executable by processing circuitry of a communication device (see paragraphs 95-96; figures; and throughout) to cause a network node to perform operations as above in claim 1, thus claim 30 is rejected with similar rationale as claim 1 above under the teachings of the prior art.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (US 2024/0080741).
Regarding claim 26:
Zeng discloses a method performed by a third network node for handling a successful handover report, SHR (abstract; figures [three network devices]), the method comprising:
receiving the SHR from a communication device, the SHR associated with a handover of the communication device between a first network node and a second network node (figure 2 [SHR in step 105]; figures 3-6; para 8-24; para 78; para 79); and
transmitting the SHR to at least one of the first network node and the second network node based on information associated with the SHR (fig 2 [step 106]; para 79-82; figs 3-6; and see throughout the disclosure).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2024/0215099) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2024/0080741).
Regarding claim 3:
Chang discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that receiving a request for the SHR from a third network node; and transmitting the SHR to the third network node.
However, Zeng in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for wireless communication where receiving a request for the SHR from a third network node; and transmitting the SHR to the third network node (para 55 {terminal device sends the SHR, the network device connected to the terminal device, that is, the network device that receives the SHR sent by the terminal device, is the network device 3…} [see network device 3 in figures 2-6 as third network node]; para 67,79; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Zeng in Chang in order to provide optimizing a mobility performance in successful handover scenario [para 6-10] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 4:
Chang discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that wherein the third network node is separate and distinct from the first network node and the second network node.
However, Zeng in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for wireless communication wherein the third network node is separate and distinct from the first network node and the second network node (the network device 3 in figures 2-6 is separate third network node; para 10-15, 55,79,87; and see throughout disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Zeng in Chang in order to provide optimizing a mobility performance in successful handover scenario [para 6-10] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,7,14,15 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 2023/0422135) discloses a system and method for mobility robustness optimization.
Wu et al. (US 2023/0199578) discloses a system and method for managing configuration received from RAN with nodes supporting different configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631