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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 01/16/24, including preliminary amendments filed on 01/16/24, has been entered.
Claims 47-66 are pending.
Claims 1-46 have been canceled.
Claims 47-66 have been added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 55 and 64 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. Specifically, the claims recite the limitation "the other field". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 47, 51, 53-55, 56, 60, 62-65, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei (“Discussions on L1/L2-centric inter-cell mobility”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #112-3, R3-212510, cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Cirik (EP 3694114 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 47, Huawei discloses an apparatus (gNB [fig. 1-2]), comprising:
at least one processor (gNB (inherent) [fig. 1-2]); and
at least one memory (gNB (inherent) [fig. 1-2]) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive from a user equipment, UE [pg. 2 sec. 2.1 par. 1] (UE sends L1 measurement report to gNB-DU [pg. 3 sec. 2.1.2 par. 1]);
determine to perform a layer 1, L1, based handover for the UE based on the received (gNB makes HO decision based on the L1 measurement report and the HO command is sent by L1/L2 signaling (i.e., L1 HO) [pg. 3 sec. 2.1.2 par. 1]); and
send an L1 based handover command to the UE (The HO command is sent from gNB to UE by L1/L2 signaling (i.e., L1 based) [pg. 3 sec. 2.1.2 par. 1]).
Although Huawei discloses HOs, as discussed above, Huawei does not explicitly disclose at least one of a buffer status report, BSR, or an uplink, UL, medium access control-control element, MAC-CE; at least one of the BSR or the UL MAC-CE. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Cirik.
In the same field of endeavor, Cirik discloses:
at least one of a buffer status report, BSR, or an uplink, UL, medium access control-control element, MAC-CE (The UE transmits a MAC-CE on the UL [par. 0293]);
at least one of the BSR or the UL MAC-CE [par. 0293].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huawei with Cirik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of failure recovery [Cirik Abstract].
Regarding claim 56, Huawei discloses an apparatus (UE [pg. 2 sec. 2.1 par. 1]), comprising:
at least one processor (UE (inherent) [pg. 2 sec. 2.1 par. 1]); and
at least one memory (UE (inherent) [pg. 2 sec. 2.1 par. 1]) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a network element, NE [fig. 1-2], a layer 1/layer 2, L1/L2, mobility configuration (For intra-DU scenarios, the gNB (i.e., NE) sends the RRCReconfig msg to the UE, where the UE recognizes the msg is for pre-config of L1/L2 HO (i.e., L1/L2 mobility config) [pg. 2 sec. 2.1.1 par. 2]);
decide that there is an L1 channel state information, CSI, report to send (UE sends L1 measurement report to gNB-DU (i.e., decided) [pg. 3 sec. 2.1.2 par. 1]);
L1 CSI … L1 CSI [pg. 3 sec. 2.1.2 par. 1]; and
receive an L1 based handover command from the NE (The HO command is sent from gNB to UE by L1/L2 signaling (i.e., L1 based) [pg. 3 sec. 2.1.2 par. 1]).
Although Huawei discloses HOs, as discussed above, Huawei does not explicitly disclose determine whether the apparatus has an uplink, UL, grant; if it is determined that the apparatus has an UL grant, send at least one of a buffer status report, BSR, or an UL medium access control-control element, MAC-CE, to the NE; if it is determined that the apparatus does not have an UL grant, send a dedicated schedule request, SR, to the NE indicating that an Li CSI report is pending, receive a scheduling grant from the NE, and send the L1 CSI report to the NE based on the scheduling grant. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Cirik.
In the same field of endeavor, Cirik discloses:
determine whether the apparatus has an uplink, UL, grant (If UE has UL grant, it sends MAC-CE (i.e., determined) [par. 0292-293]);
if it is determined that the apparatus has an UL grant, send at least one of a buffer status report, BSR, or an UL medium access control-control element, MAC-CE, to the NE (If UE has UL grant, it sends MAC-CE (i.e., UL) [par. 0292-293]);
if it is determined that the apparatus does not have an UL grant, send a dedicated schedule request, SR, to the NE indicating that an … report is pending, receive a scheduling grant from the NE, and send the … report to the NE based on the scheduling grant (If the UE does not have an UL grant (i.e., determined), it sends an SR, receives a scheduling grant, and sends data [par. 0294, 296-297].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huawei with Cirik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of failure recovery [Cirik Abstract].
Regarding claim 66, it substantially similar to claim 56, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claims 51 and 60, Huawei and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Huawei further discloses:
wherein the UL MAC-CE comprises at least one of an L1 CSI report, a cell indication or a beam indication that can uniquely identify the measured cell or beam (L1 CSI report uniquely IDs measured cell [pg. 3 sec. 2.1.2 par. 1]).
Regarding claims 53 and 62, Huawei and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Huawei and Cirik further disclose wherein the instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive from the UE a dedicated scheduling request [Cirik par. 0255, 292-298] indicating that an L1 CSI report is pending [Huawei and Cirik, as discussed above]; and
in response to the received dedicated scheduling request, send a scheduling grant to the UE [Cirik par. 0292-298], wherein the scheduling grant either triggers an aperiodic CSI request [Cirik par. 0083] for the pending L1 CSI report [Huawei, as discussed above], or schedules a data channel that can be used to deliver the L1 CSI report [Huawei, as discussed above].
Regarding claims 54 and 63, Huawei and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Huawei and Cirik further disclose:
wherein the L1 CSI report [Huawei, as discussed above] includes a cell identifier that can uniquely identify the measured cell [Cirik par. 0029].
Regarding claims 55 and 64, Huawei and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Huawei and Cirik further disclose:
wherein the cell identifier [Cirik par. 0149-150] is introduced as a separate field in the L1 CSI report [Huawei, as discussed above], or integrated as part of the other field [Cirik par. 0149-150].
Regarding claim 65, Huawei and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Huawei and Cirik further disclose:
wherein the other field includes at least one of CSI reference signal resource indicator, CRI [Cirik par. 0149-150], or synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel block resource indicator, SSBRI.
Claims 48-50, 52 and 57-59, 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei and Cirik as applied to claims 47 and 56 respectively, and further in view of Babaei (US 20180270700 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claims 48 and 57, Huawei and Cirik disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Huawei and Cirik disclose that indicates a pending L1, channel state information, CSI, report, as discussed above, Huawei and Cirik do not explicitly disclose wherein the BSR includes a designated logical channel group, LCG, identifier, ID. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Cirik.
In the same field of endeavor, Babaei discloses:
wherein the BSR includes a designated logical channel group, LCG, identifier, ID (BSR LCG ID [par. 0324]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huawei and Cirik with Babaei. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of distinguishing between different priority LCGs [Babaei par. 0323].
Regarding claims 49 and 58, Huawei, Cirik, and Babaei disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Huawei and Babaei further disclose:
wherein a buffer size field of the BSR corresponding to the designated LCG ID (Buffer size field [Babaei par. 0325]) includes L1 measurement information for the L1 based handover event to proceed [Huawei, as discussed above].
Regarding claims 50 and 59, Huawei, Cirik, and Babaei disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Huawei further discloses:
wherein the L1 measurement information comprises at least one of an L1 CSI report, a cell indication or a beam indication that can uniquely identify the measured cell or beam (L1 CSI report uniquely IDs measured cell [pg. 3 sec. 2.1.2 par. 1]).
Regarding claims 52 and 61, Huawei, Cirik, and Babaei disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Huawei further discloses:
where the L1 CSI report includes a full or part of a channel measurement metric, or an indication of a configured event triggering the L1 CSI report (L1 CSI report includes full or part of channel measurement metric [pg. 3 sec. 2.1.2 par. 1]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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 at 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights