Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/570,200

METHODS AND NETWORK NODES FOR SUSPEND-RESUME FOR L1/L2 CENTRIC INTER-CELL MOBILITY CONFIGUATION(S)

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 14, 2023
Examiner
CHERY, DADY
Art Unit
2418
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ)
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1282 granted / 1458 resolved
+29.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1488
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§103
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
§102
39.6%
-0.4% vs TC avg
§112
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1458 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 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 22 is 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. Claim 22 is dependent on rejected claim 16. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1,4,6,17-18,22-24,27,28,30-32, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Application 2021/0037403, hereinafter Kim). Regarding claim 1,27, 28, Kim discloses a method (Figs. 1, 5-7) performed by a user equipment (UE)(1-35), comprising processing circuitry (1940,1942) and network interfaces (1910,1920) connected thereto, the method comprising: receiving, transmitting, a configuration for Layer (L1)/Layer 2 (L2) (6-05) centric inter-cell mobility([0155], which recites an RCC connection message considered as a configuration for Layer (L1)/Layer 2 (L2) centric inter-cell mobility as claimed by the instant application as described on [0136]-[0137] The RRCSetup message may contain at least one of configuration information for each logical channel, configuration information for each bearer, configuration information for a PDCP layer device, configuration information for an RLC layer device, and configuration information for a MAC layer device. The RRCSetup message may allocate a bearer identifier (e.g., an SRB identifier or a DRB identifier) to each bearer and indicate configuration of a PDCP layer device, an RLC layer device, a MAC layer device, and/or a PHY layer device for each bearer); receiving, transmitting a suspend message (6-10) to suspend a connection with a network node([0155], which recites he gNB may transmit an RRCRelease message containing an indicator (suspend-config) instructing the UE to transition to the RRC inactive mode); suspending the connection([0155], which recites he gNB may transmit an RRCRelease message containing an indicator (suspend-config) instructing the UE to transition to the RRC inactive mode thereby, suspending the connection)and in response to receiving the suspend message, deleting the configuration for the L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility([0337], which recites the RRCRelease message may define an indicator to discard the frequency measurement configuration information or the frequency measurement result, and may set change, or delete only part of the stored frequency measurement configuration information. As disclosed on [0039], the RRCRelease message containing the indication to set change or delete only part of the stored frequency measurement configuration information is received by the UE from the base station ). Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein suspending the connection comprises transitioning to an inactive state([0155]). Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to receiving the suspend message, storing the first configuration([0338]). Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising, in response to determining to resume the connection, deleting the stored configuration([0337]-[00338]). Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the configuration comprises one or more parameters([0337]-[0338]). Regarding claim 22, Kim discloses the method of claim 16, wherein deleting the configuration is further in response to receiving an indication from the network node to discard the configuration to avoid configuration mismatch between the network node and the UE([0129],[0335]). Regarding claim 23, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein deleting the configuration comprises deleting at least a subset of parameters for one of candidate cells([0337]-[0338]). Regarding claim 24, Kim discloses the method of claim 6, wherein storing the configuration comprises storing at least a subset of parameters for at least one candidate cell([0185]). Regarding claim 30, Kim discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the first configuration comprises one or more parameters([0155]). Regarding claim 31, Kim discloses the method of claim 30, wherein the one or more parameters comprise cell-specific parameters or Physical Cell Identity (PCI)-specific parameters([0323]). Regarding claim 32, Kim discloses the method of claim 28, further comprising receiving a request for a UE context from a second network node and providing the UE context to the second network node([0139]). Regarding claim 47, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to receiving the suspend message, before entering RRC_INACTIVE, deleting the configuration for L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility([0155]). 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. 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) 19-21,48-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zhou et al. (US Application 2022/0014983, hereinafter Zhou). Regarding claims 19,48, Kim discloses the method of claim 18 as addressed above, except wherein the one or more parameters comprise cell-specific parameters, wherein the cell-specific parameters are configured for each target candidate cell for L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility. However, Zhou teaches the one or more parameters comprise cell-specific parameters, wherein the cell-specific parameters are configured for each target candidate cell for L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility(Abstract, [0007], [0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhou with the teaching of Kim by using the above features such as the one or more parameters comprise cell-specific parameters, wherein the cell-specific parameters are configured for each target candidate cell for L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility as taught by Zhou for the purpose of fast CA/DC reconfiguration in L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility(Abstract). Regarding claims 20, 49, Kim discloses the method of claim 18 as addressed above, except wherein the one or more parameters comprise Physical Cell Identity (PCI)-specific parameters, wherein the PCI-specific parameters are configured for each target PCI candidate for L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility. However, Zhou teaches the one or more parameters comprise Physical Cell Identity (PCI)-specific parameters, wherein the PCI-specific parameters are configured for each target PCI candidate for L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility (Abstract, [0007], [0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhou with the teaching of Kim by using the above features such as the one or more parameters comprise Physical Cell Identity (PCI)-specific parameters, wherein the PCI-specific parameters are configured for each target PCI candidate for L1/L2 centric inter-cell mobility as taught by Zhou for the purpose of fast CA/DC reconfiguration in L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility(Abstract). Regarding claims 21, 50, Kim discloses the method of claim 18 as addressed above, except wherein the configuration is for a Master Cell Group (MCG), a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) or both the MCG and SCG. However, Zhou teaches the configuration is for a Master Cell Group (MCG), a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) or both the MCG and SCG (Abstract, [0007], [0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhou with the teaching of Kim by using the above features such as the configuration is for a Master Cell Group (MCG), a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) or both the MCG and SCG as taught by Zhou for the purpose of fast CA/DC reconfiguration in L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility(Abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DADY CHERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1207. The examiner can normally be reached M to T, 8 am to 5pm. 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617. 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. /DADY CHERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587915
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MOBILITY ENHANCEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581373
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AREA MANAGEMENT IN AN NTN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581520
UE CAPABILITY SIGNALING TO SUPPORT ENHANCEMENTS ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION FOR 5G NEW RADIO (NR) IN UNLICENSED SPECTRUM (NR-U)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581509
METHOD FOR SELECTING RESOURCE IN CONSIDERATION OF ACTIVE TIME RELATED TO SL DRX IN NR V2X
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581468
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR A MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+9.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1458 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month