CTNF 18/586,328 CTNF 86695 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the claims received on 2/23/2024. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim 1 is interpreted as follows : 1. An apparatus for wireless communication at a first network entity, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the first network entity to: receive, from a second network entity, signaling ( claimed "receive, from a second network entity, signaling" does not comprise functional language as explained in MPEP 2181; claimed "signaling" is not a generic placeholder or a replacement for "means" ) indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU , interpreted as a generic placeholder or a replacement for "means" as demonstrated below ) or a cell that is associated with the second network entity; transmit, to the second network entity, information ( claimed "transmit, to the second network entity, information" does not comprise functional language as explained in MPEP 2181; claimed "information" is not a generic placeholder or a replacement for "means" ) associated with the eDU or the cell, wherein the information is associated with a measurement related to a user equipment (UE) served by the eDU or the cell; and receive, from the second network entity, configuration ( claimed "receive, from the second network entity, configuration" does not comprise functional language as explained in MPEP 2181; claimed "configuration" is not a generic placeholder or a replacement for "means" ) information for the eDU or the cell. Claim Interpretation under 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 7.30.06 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, Invoked Despite Absence of “Means” This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are, in claims 1-30: “receive, from a second network entity, signaling indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU) or a cell that is associated with the second network entity… ” “transmit, to a second network entity, signaling indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU) or a cell that is associated with the first network entity… ” The above-cited limitations use generic placeholder “enhanced distributed unit (eDU)” , coupled with functional language "that is associated with the first network entity" ( MPEP 2181 does not require a transitional word, such as “for”, or “configured to” ) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers. MPEP 2181 explains that "Structural elements may appear in both product claims and process claims; thus, all claim types should be reviewed for the presence of "means-plus-function" limitations. Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006, 2021 USPQ2d 284, (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise."). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374, 116 USPQ2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term "compliance mechanism" in a method claim was a means-plus-function term)." Therefore, a limitation in a method claim may also invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) . Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawings shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation ( please refer to Fig. 5 of the Drawings ): eDU 510 represented in Fig. 5. PNG media_image1.png 502 714 media_image1.png Greyscale The specification describes Fig. 5 in par. 95, 101-105, without providing an explanation about which hardware components would comprise claimed “eDU”. The following excerpts from the specification mention claimed “eDU”. Clearly, the structure which comprised claimed "eDU" is indefinite: Par. 95: "An eDU 410 may include a network entity (e.g., a network node 110, a DU 330) capable of communicating with service 405" – However, "may include" is the same as "may include or not". Therefore, a person having ordinary skill would not be apprised of a scope of a structure which forms claimed "eDU". Par. 102: "A service-based architecture (e.g., service-based architecture 400) may include an eDU 510 (e.g., eDU 410, DU 330, network node 110) and a set of services 505." – In this embodiment, apparently the eDU is a separate entity from network node 110; therefore, the eDU may not include network node 110. Par. 106: " "Network node” may be used to refer to an ACMS 605 or a TMS 610. Example 600 also includes eDUs 615a, 615b, 615c, and 615d (e.g., eDU 410/510)" – Again, "eDU" is described as being separate from a network node. Par. 106: " “DU” or “network node” or “network entity” may be used to refer to an eDU 615 " – In this embodiment, "eDU" may be a network node or a "DU" or a "network entity". A network entity may be a network function or a software. Therefore, the specification doesn’t link a specific structure to the “eDU”, and claimed “eDU” renders the claims indefinite, because the specification did not define which structure performs the function in the corresponding functional limitation. Claims 1-30 are not single means claims. A single means claim is a claim that recites a means-plus-function limitation as the only limitation of a claim; in contrast, claims 1-30 have more than one limitation. See MPEP § 2164.08(a) and 2181: "It is important to distinguish between claims that recite multiple functional limitations (a common practice particularly in the computer-related arts) and claims that recite a single element in means-plus-function terms (rare in most arts)." If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this office action. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1-30 are 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 claims contain 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 pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitations containing generic placeholders in claims 1-30 invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as described in the 35 USC 112(f) section of the instant office action. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A review of the specification and drawings shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation ( please refer to Fig. 5 of the Drawings ): eDU 510 represented in Fig. 5. The specification describes Fig. 5 in par. 95, 101-105, without providing an explanation about which hardware components would comprise claimed “eDU”. The following excerpts from the specification mention claimed “eDU”. Clearly, the structure which comprised claimed "eDU" is indefinite: Par. 95: "An eDU 410 may include a network entity (e.g., a network node 110, a DU 330) capable of communicating with service 405" – However, "may include" is the same as "may include or not". Therefore, a person having ordinary skill would not be apprised of a scope of a structure which forms claimed "eDU". Par. 102: "A service-based architecture (e.g., service-based architecture 400) may include an eDU 510 (e.g., eDU 410, DU 330, network node 110) and a set of services 505." – In this embodiment, apparently the eDU is a separate entity from network node 110; therefore, the eDU may not include network node 110. Par. 106: " "Network node” may be used to refer to an ACMS 605 or a TMS 610. Example 600 also includes eDUs 615a, 615b, 615c, and 615d (e.g., eDU 410/510)" – Again, "eDU" is described as being separate from a network node. Par. 106: " “DU” or “network node” or “network entity” may be used to refer to an eDU 615 " – In this embodiment, "eDU" may be a network node or a "DU" or a "network entity". A network entity may be a network function or a software. Therefore, the specification doesn’t link a specific structure to the “eDU”, and claimed “eDU” renders the claims indefinite, because the specification did not define which structure performs the function in the corresponding functional limitation. In all cases above, the specification does not define which structure performs the function in the corresponding functional limitation. Therefore, the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims incorporate all limitations of the independent claims, and therefore also fail to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons. The dependent claims depend upon independent claims 1, 18, 29, 30, and therefore, fail to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons as the independent claims. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim limitations containing generic placeholders in claims 1-30 invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as described in the 35 USC 112(f) section of the instant office action. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A review of the specification and drawings shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation ( please refer to Fig. 5 of the Drawings ): eDU 510 represented in Fig. 5. The specification describes Fig. 5 in par. 95, 101-105, without providing an explanation about which hardware components would comprise claimed “eDU”. The following excerpts from the specification mention claimed “eDU”. Clearly, the structure which comprised claimed "eDU" is indefinite: Par. 95: "An eDU 410 may include a network entity (e.g., a network node 110, a DU 330) capable of communicating with service 405" – However, "may include" is the same as "may include or not". Therefore, a person having ordinary skill would not be apprised of a scope of a structure which forms claimed "eDU". Par. 102: "A service-based architecture (e.g., service-based architecture 400) may include an eDU 510 (e.g., eDU 410, DU 330, network node 110) and a set of services 505." – In this embodiment, apparently the eDU is a separate entity from network node 110; therefore, the eDU may not include network node 110. Par. 106: " "Network node” may be used to refer to an ACMS 605 or a TMS 610. Example 600 also includes eDUs 615a, 615b, 615c, and 615d (e.g., eDU 410/510)" – Again, "eDU" is described as being separate from a network node. Par. 106: " “DU” or “network node” or “network entity” may be used to refer to an eDU 615 " – In this embodiment, "eDU" may be a network node or a "DU" or a "network entity". A network entity may be a network function or a software. Therefore, the specification doesn’t link a specific structure to the “eDU”, and claimed “eDU” renders the claims indefinite, because the specification did not define which structure performs the function in the corresponding functional limitation. In all cases above, the generic placeholders render the claims indefinite, because the specification did not define which structure performs the function in the corresponding functional limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The dependent claims incorporate all limitations of the independent claims, and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons. The dependent claims incorporate all limitations of the independent claims 1, 18, 29, 30, and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons as the independent claims. In order to overcome indefiniteness and lack of written description, the Examiner recommends amending these limitations as follows: receive, from a second network entity, signaling indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU) or a cell that is associated with the second network entity , wherein the eDU comprises a transceiver … 07-34-23 transmit, to a second network entity, signaling indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU) or a cell that is associated with the first network entity , wherein the eDU comprises a transceiver … Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. MPEP 2173.04 “Breadth is Not Indefiniteness” explains that a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim). In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness."). In this case , independent claims 1, 18, 29, 30 recite the phrase “ signaling indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU) or a cell that is associated with the (first) second network entity .” This phrase does not apprise a person of ordinary skill of the scope of the claim because there is confusion as to which are the alternatives before and after "or". This “genus” excerpt from the claim covers at least the following “species”: 1. signaling indicating a cell that is associated with the (first) second network entity or an enhanced distributed unit (eDU) or a cell that is associated with the second network entity : the specification enables this embodiment in par. 111: "…the TMS 610 and the ACMS 605 can be deployed differently to address their specific purposes. For example, since the TMS 610 is concerned with cell and inter-cell relationships, the TMS 610 can be deployed in association with (e.g., specific to) a certain geographical area." Also par. 114: "the TMS 710 may receive information (e.g., from the DU 330, from one or more cells associated with the DU 330) associated with DUs 330 and cells managed by the TMS 710. Accordingly, the TMS may be store information associated with the DU 330 (and cells associated with the DU 330)." 2. signaling indicating either: a) an enhanced distributed unit (eDU) that is associated with the (first) second network entity, or b) a cell that is associated with the (first) second network entity: the specification enables this embodiment in par. 110: "In some aspects, a TMS 610 may manage or be otherwise associated with eDUs 615 belonging to different PLMNs. For example, eDU 615a may belong to a first PLMN and eDU 615b may belong to a second PLMN. TMS 610a may manage or be associated with eDU 615a and eDU 615b." TMS 610 is also associated with ACMS 710 because they are exchanging signals between themselves in Fig. 7. Also par. 91: …signaling indicating a eDU or a cell that is associated with the second network entity. Because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim, the genus claim can be interpreted in more than one way, and the above-demonstrated ambiguity makes unclear which species is covered, rendering the claims indefinite. The dependent claims incorporate the limitations of the independent claims, and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons above. In order to overcome indefiniteness, the Examiner recommends amending the claims as in one of the options above, which would NOT create a new matter issue, because all the alternatives are supported in the specification and drawings. For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as alternative 1. Subject Matter Eligible under 35 USC 101 Please refer to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes in MPEP 2106 and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter, the “2019 PEG”: PNG media_image2.png 711 1293 media_image2.png Greyscale Step 1 : See MPEP 2106.03: 35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. Claims 1-30 include claims directed to a process, and claims directed to a machine, which are statutory categories. Therefore, the answer in step 1 is YES. Step 2A : MPEP 2106 subclause II. “ ELIGIBILITY STEP 2A: WHETHER A CLAIM IS DIRECTED TO A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION ” explains that Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. Step 2A prong 1 : The 2019 PEG explains that Step 2A prong 1 procedure for determining whether a claim “recites” an abstract idea is: identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, which are: Mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). In this case, the independent claims recite an abstract idea of a mental process of sending and receiving information, for example, configuration information; therefore, the answer to Step 2 prong 1 is YES. Step 2A prong 2 : Yes, the claim does recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. Par. 33, 34 of the specification describes a technical advantage of the claimed invention. Based on collecting information about UEs that are served by eDUs or cells, and transmitting measurement reports including the collected information, it is possible to reconfigure functions of the network and improve coordination between devices and the efficacy of network management. Additionally, the indicating first and second configurations, or reconfigurations, enables the ACMS, TMS, eDUs, and UEs to coordinate network management. Therefore, the claimed invention provides an improvement to the state-of-the-art wireless communications networks, which is therefore a specific improvement over prior systems, and the claimed invention reflects such practical application. Please refer to MPEP 2106.04(d): "Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application" under the header "Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application": "Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: • An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)". See for example the court decision in 118 USPQ2d 1684 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp; U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, page 1689: “much of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes”. Therefore, the answer to prong 2 is YES, and the claims are eligible in step 2A. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 7.20.02.aia Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed 07-20-02-aia AIA 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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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. 7.23.aia Test for Obviousness 07-23-fti The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-11, 13-19, 21-27, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada et al (publication number 2025/0113259), hereinafter Awada . Awada teaches in par. 102-108 in reference to the signaling diagram of Fig. 2, a handover process as follows: PNG media_image3.png 610 990 media_image3.png Greyscale The terms and acronyms used by Awada are explained below: Par. 93: gNB central unit (gNB-CU). Par. 95: NG-RAN gNB (5G base station) distributed units (gNB-DU); Layer 1/2 (L1/2); RRC (Radio Resource Control); RLC (Radio Link Control). Par. 97: “User equipment” (UE). Par. 103: CSI (Channel State Information). Awada Fig. 2, as described in par. 103, represents on the left side a UE which is served by a serving cell. The serving cell is operated by gNB-DU1. DU2 operates the target cell. Fig 2 represents the UE, DU1, DU2, CU1. Awada's Fig. 2 doesn't display the serving cell and the target cells; however, Awada does describe the roles of the serving and target cells, in combination with the UE, DU1, DU2, CU1, in the process of Fig. 2. Awada describes variations of the method of Fig. 2 in the signaling diagrams of Figs. 3-7 which also involve the same serving and target cells in combination with the same UE, DU1, DU2, CU1. Awada describes, also in par. 103, an information element represented in Fig. 11. The information element (IE) includes: (a) the information received from DU2 via CU1 about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the target cell (e.g. CSI Resource Configuration for the target cell) and about operation in the target cell in the event of a L1/2 handover to the target cell (e.g. TCI (Transmission Configuration Indicator) state information for the target cell); (b) information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources (CSI resource configuration) in the serving cell ; and (c) information about reporting L1/2 mobility measurement results via the serving cell to DU1 (e.g. CSI reporting configuration). PNG media_image4.png 454 912 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Awada teaches (please refer to Awada's signaling diagram of Fig. 2 described in par. 102-108) an apparatus (processor 902 in Awada par. 134: FIG. 9 illustrates an example of an apparatus for implementing gNB-DU functionality or gNB-CU functionality. The apparatus may include at least one processor 902 ") for wireless communication at a first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) , comprising: one or more memories ( Awada par. 134: memory 906 ); and one or more processors ( Awada par. 134: processor 902 ), coupled to the one or more memories ( Awada par. 134: memory 906 ), configured to cause the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) to: receive (by DU1, represented in Awada Fig. 2, which operates the serving cell) , from a second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ), signaling ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ) indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU , not required ) or a cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure; as previously demonstrated, Awada's operation 1 of Fig. 3 indicates the serving cell) that is associated with the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1. Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ); transmit (by DU1, represented in Awada Fig. 2, which operates the serving cell) , to the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ), information ( Awada Fig. 2 operation 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ) associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) , wherein the information is associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) a measurement related to a user equipment (UE , UE represented in Awada Fig. 2. Par. 103 explains that the UE transmits, in operation 1, a L3 measurement report via the serving cell; DU1 forwards the L3 measurement report to the gNB-CU1 associated with DU1. All elements described in par. 102-108 are associated with each other because they all belong to the same process of Fig. 2 ) served by the eDU or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure; Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: "UE is served by a serving cell operated by gNB-DU1") ; and receive (by DU1, represented in Awada Fig. 2, which operates the serving cell) , from the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ), configuration information ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) for the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) . The first embodiment of Awada does not explicitly teach why the information element in operation 9 of Fig. 2 comprises claimed "configuration information". However, a second embodiment of Awada teaches (please refer to the information element represented in Awada Fig. 11 described in par. 103) : configuration information ( FIG. 11 shows a representation of an example information element, which includes (b) information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources (CSI resource configuration) in the serving cell ). PNG media_image5.png 390 774 media_image5.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of the first embodiment of Awada , by making sure that the RRC reconfiguration message from CU1 to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell includes the information element "IE" which includes information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources (CSI resource configuration) in the serving cell, as suggested by the second embodiment of Awada , in order to optimize a comparison of the serving and target cells at DU1 for deciding on cell change, in order to facilitate L1/L2 handover between cells operated by different gNB-Dus, in order to facilitate a decision at the serving cell DU about whether to change the UE from the serving cell to a target cell, avoiding a risk of an inaccurate L1/L2 mobility decision at the serving gNB-DU ( Awada par. 129-132 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim 2, Awada teaches wherein the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) comprises a service ( Awada par. 100: 5G service ) associated with connection management and mobility management ( Awada par. 96: Each gNB-CU is connected to a core network user plane function (UPF), for providing connectivity of devices to one or more external packet data networks (DN), and to an access mobility management function (AMF) for controlling access and mobility of user equipments ) of the UE served by the eDU or the cell ( Awada Fig. 2, as described in par. 103: UE which is served by the serving cell operated by DU1 ). Regarding claim 4, Awada teaches transmit, to the UE served by the eDU or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure; Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: "UE is served by a serving cell operated by gNB-DU1") , second configuration information for the UE ( Awada par. 111 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 10, CU1 sends the information element in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell ), wherein the second configuration information for the UE corresponds to the configuration information for the eDU or the cell ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ). Regarding claim 5, Awada teaches wherein the one or more processors ( Awada par. 134: processor 902 ), to cause the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) to transmit the second configuration information to the UE ( Awada par. 111 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 10, CU1 sends the information element in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell ), are configured to cause the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) to transmit the second configuration information via at least one of radio resource control signaling ( Awada par. 111 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 10, CU1 sends the information element in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell ), medium access control signaling, or downlink control information signaling. Regarding claim 6, Awada teaches wherein the second configuration information ( Awada par. 111 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 10, CU1 sends the information element in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell ) comprises at least one of a cell-specific offset for mobility, a random access channel configuration, a self-organizing network configuration ( Awada par. 99: autonomic self-healing networks ), or a minimization of drive test reporting configuration. Regarding claim 7, Awada teaches wherein the one or more processors ( Awada par. 134: processor 902 ) are further configured to cause the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) to: receive, from the UE, an indication of the measurement performed by the UE ( UE represented in Awada Fig. 2. Par. 103 explains that the UE transmits, in operation 1, a L3 measurement report via the serving cell; DU1 forwards the L3 measurement report to the gNB-CU1 associated with DU1. All elements described in par. 102-108 are associated with each other because they all belong to the same process of Fig. 2 ), wherein transmitting the information to the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ) is in response to receiving the indication from the UE ( Awada Fig. 2: operation 2 is clearly in response to operation 1 ). Regarding claim 8, Awada teaches wherein the configuration information for the eDU or the cell ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) comprises a policy associated with at least one of the first network entity, the eDU, the cell ( claimed "policy associated with the cell" equates to "configuration" in Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ), or the UE served by the eDU or the cell. Regarding claim 9, Awada teaches wherein the signaling indicating the eDU or the cell ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ) comprises at least one of an identifier of the eDU, an identifier of the cell ( identified in Awada par. 103 as "serving cell operated by gNB-DU1" ), a public land mobile network identifier, a non public network identifier, a fully qualified domain name, a location identifier, a geographical position or geographical area identifier, a tracking area identifier, or a radio access network notification area identifier. Regarding claim 10, Awada teaches wherein the information ( Awada Fig. 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ) associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) comprises at least one of a handover measurement associated the cell ( Par. 103 explains in reference to Fig. 2 that the UE transmits, in operation 1, a L3 measurement report via the serving cell; DU1 forwards the L3 measurement report to the gNB-CU1 associated with DU1 ) and a second cell ( Awada par. 103: target cell operated by DU2. All elements described in par. 102-108 are associated with each other because they all belong to the same process of Fig. 2. Awada par. 110: Based on the L3 measurement report, CU1 decides to prepare a cell operated by DU2 for a possible L1/2 inter-cell handover in OPERATION 6 of FIG. 3 ), a handover matrix associated with the cell and the second cell, an indication of handover failure occurring between the cell and the second cell, an indication of radio link failure occurring at the cell, a self-organizing network report, or a minimization of drive test report. Regarding claim 11, Awada teaches wherein the information ( Awada Fig. 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ) associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) is based at least in part on measurements performed by a plurality of UEs served by the eDU or the cell, measurements performed by a subset of UEs served by the eDU or the cell, or one measurement performed by a single UE ( Par. 103 explains in reference to Fig. 2 that the UE transmits, in operation 1, a L3 measurement report via the serving cell; DU1 forwards the L3 measurement report to the gNB-CU1 associated with DU1 ). Regarding claim 13, Awada teaches wherein the configuration information ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) for the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) comprises configuration information for one eDU, the cell ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ), or the UE served by the eDU or the cell. Regarding claim 14, Awada teaches wherein the one or more processors ( Awada par. 134: processor 902 ), to cause the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) to receive the signaling ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ), are configured to cause the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) to: receive the signaling in response to transmitting, to the second network entity, a request for the signaling indicating the eDU or the cell; or receive the signaling ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ) without transmitting, to the second network entity, the request for the signaling indicating the eDU or the cell ( Awada Fig. 3 operation 1 is the first operation of the signaling diagram, which suggests that operation 1 is not a response to a request ). Regarding claim 15 , it recites "15. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the eDU comprises a service associated with lower layer functionalities in a radio access network." However, claimed “eDU” doesn’t limit the claim, and isn’t required, because it is alternative to another element already taught by prior art in the independent claim. Regarding claim 16, Awada teaches wherein the one or more processors ( Awada par. 134: processor 902 ), to cause the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) to transmit the information ( Awada Fig. 2 operation 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ), are configured to cause the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) to: transmit the signaling in response to receiving, from the second network entity, a request for the information associated with the eDU or the cell; or transmit the signaling ( Awada Fig. 2 operation 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ) without receiving, from the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ), the request for the information associated with the eDU or the cell ( Awada Fig. 2 operation 2 is consequence of operation 1; operation 1 is not a request from CU1 ). Regarding claim 17, Awada teaches wherein the one or more processors ( Awada par. 134: processor 902 ), to cause the first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) to receive the configuration information ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ), are configured to cause the first network entity to: receive the signaling in response to transmitting, to the second network entity, a request for the configuration information for the eDU or the cell; or receive the signaling ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) without transmitting, to the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ), the request for the configuration information for the eDU or the cell ( Fig. 2 operation 9 is not a response to a request sent to CU1 ). Regarding claim 18, Awada teaches (please refer to Awada's signaling diagram of Fig. 2 described in par. 102-108) an apparatus (processor 902 in Awada par. 134: FIG. 9 illustrates an example of an apparatus for implementing gNB-DU functionality or gNB-CU functionality. The apparatus may include at least one processor 902 ") for wireless communication at a first network entity ( CU1 in Awada Fig. 2 ), comprising: one or more memories ( Awada par. 134: memory 906 ); and one or more processors ( Awada par. 134: processor 902 ), coupled to the one or more memories ( Awada par. 134: memory 906 ), configured to cause the first network entity ( CU1 in Awada Fig. 2 ) to: transmit ( by CU1 represented in Awada Fig. 2 ), to a second network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) , signaling ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ) indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU , not required ) or a cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) that is associated with the first network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1. Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ); receive ( by CU1 represented in Awada Fig. 2 ), from the second network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) , information ( Awada Fig. 2 operation 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ) associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) the eDU or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) , wherein the information is associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) a measurement related to a user equipment (UE , UE represented in Awada Fig. 2. Par. 103 explains that the UE transmits, in operation 1, a L3 measurement report via the serving cell; DU1 forwards the L3 measurement report to the gNB-CU1 associated with DU1. All elements described in par. 102-108 are associated with each other because they all belong to the same process of Fig. 2 ) served by the eDU or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure; Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: "UE is served by a serving cell operated by gNB-DU1") ; and transmit ( by CU1 represented in Awada Fig. 2 ), to the second network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) , configuration information ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) for the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) . The first embodiment of Awada does not explicitly teach why the information element in operation 9 of Fig. 2 comprises claimed "configuration information". However, a second embodiment of Awada teaches (please refer to the information element represented in Awada Fig. 11 described in par. 103) : configuration information ( FIG. 11 shows a representation of an example information element, which includes (b) information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources (CSI resource configuration) in the serving cell ). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of the first embodiment of Awada , by making sure that the RRC reconfiguration message from CU1 to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell includes the information element "IE" which includes information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources (CSI resource configuration) in the serving cell, as suggested by the second embodiment of Awada , in order to optimize a comparison of the serving and target cells at DU1 for deciding on cell change, in order to facilitate L1/L2 handover between cells operated by different gNB-Dus, in order to facilitate a decision at the serving cell DU about whether to change the UE from the serving cell to a target cell, avoiding a risk of an inaccurate L1/L2 mobility decision at the serving gNB-DU ( Awada par. 129-132 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim 19, Awada teaches wherein the second network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) comprises a service ( Awada par. 100: 5G service ) associated with connection management and mobility management ( Awada par. 96: Each gNB-CU is connected to a core network user plane function (UPF), for providing connectivity of devices to one or more external packet data networks (DN), and to an access mobility management function (AMF) for controlling access and mobility of user equipments ) of the UE served by the eDU or the cell ( Awada Fig. 2, as described in par. 103: UE which is served by the serving cell operated by DU1 ). Regarding claim 21, it recites "21. The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first network entity to: transmit, to the eDU , second configuration information for the cell, wherein the cell is associated with the eDU, and wherein the second configuration information for the cell corresponds to the information associated with the eDU or the cell." However, claimed “eDU” doesn’t limit the claim, and isn’t required, because it is alternative to another element already taught by prior art in the independent claim. So, a step of transmitting (anything) to the eDU isn't required. Regarding claim 22, it recites "22. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the second configuration information comprises an indication of an activation status of the cell or an indication of a random access channel configuration associated with the cell." However, claim 22 depends upon claim 21, so it depends upon the eDU of claim 21 which is not required. Therefore, claim 22 is not required. Regarding claim 23, it recites "23. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first network entity to: receive, from a third network entity, second information associated with the eDU or the cell, wherein the second configuration information for the cell further corresponds to the second information associated with the eDU or the cell." However, claim 23 depends upon claim 21, so it depends upon the eDU of claim 21 which is not required. Therefore, claim 23 is not required. Regarding claim 24, Awada teaches wherein the configuration information for the eDU or the cell ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) comprises a policy associated with at least one of the first network entity ( CU1 in Awada Fig. 2 ), the eDU, the cell ( claimed "policy associated with the cell" equates to "configuration" in Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ), or the UE served by the eDU or the cell. Regarding claim 25, Awada teaches wherein the signaling indicating the eDU or the cell ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ) comprises at least one of an identifier of the eDU, an identifier of the cell ( identified in Awada par. 103 as "serving cell operated by gNB-DU1" ), a public land mobile network identifier, a non public network identifier, a fully qualified domain name, a location identifier, a geographical position or geographical area identifier, a tracking area identifier, or a radio access network notification area identifier. Regarding claim 26, Awada teaches wherein the information ( Awada Fig. 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ) associated with the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) comprises at least one of a handover measurement associated the cell and a second cell ( Par. 103 explains in reference to Fig. 2 that the UE transmits, in operation 1, a L3 measurement report via the serving cell; DU1 forwards the L3 measurement report to the gNB-CU1 associated with DU1 ) and a second cell ( Awada par. 103: target cell operated by DU2. All elements described in par. 102-108 are associated with each other because they all belong to the same process of Fig. 2. Awada par. 110: Based on the L3 measurement report, CU1 decides to prepare a cell operated by DU2 for a possible L1/2 inter-cell handover in OPERATION 6 of FIG. 3 ), a handover matrix associated with the cell and the second cell, an indication of handover failure occurring between the cell and the second cell, an indication of radio link failure occurring at the cell, a self-organizing network report, or a minimization of drive test report. Regarding claim 27, Awada teaches wherein the information ( Awada Fig. 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ) associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) is based at least in part on measurements performed by a plurality of UEs served by the eDU or the cell, measurements performed by a subset of UEs served by the eDU or the cell, or one measurement performed by a single UE ( Par. 103 explains in reference to Fig. 2 that the UE transmits, in operation 1, a L3 measurement report via the serving cell; DU1 forwards the L3 measurement report to the gNB-CU1 associated with DU1 ) served by the eDU or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) . Regarding claim 29, Awada teaches a method (please refer to Awada's signaling diagram of Fig. 2 representing a method described in par. 102-108) of wireless communication ( Awada par. 99: 5G ) performed by a first network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) , comprising: receiving (by DU1, represented in Awada Fig. 2, which operates the serving cell) , from a second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ), signaling ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ) indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU , not required ) or a cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure; as previously demonstrated, Awada's operation 1 of Fig. 3 indicates the serving cell) that is associated with the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1. Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ); transmitting (by DU1, represented in Awada Fig. 2, which operates the serving cell) , to the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ), information ( Awada Fig. 2 operation 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ) associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) , wherein the information is associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) a measurement related to a user equipment (UE , UE represented in Awada Fig. 2. Par. 103 explains that the UE transmits, in operation 1, a L3 measurement report via the serving cell; DU1 forwards the L3 measurement report to the gNB-CU1 associated with DU1. All elements described in par. 102-108 are associated with each other because they all belong to the same process of Fig. 2 ) served by the eDU or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure; Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: "UE is served by a serving cell operated by gNB-DU1") ; and receiving (by DU1, represented in Awada Fig. 2, which operates the serving cell) , from the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ), configuration information ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) for the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) . The first embodiment of Awada does not explicitly teach why the information element in operation 9 of Fig. 2 comprises claimed "configuration information". However, a second embodiment of Awada teaches (please refer to the information element represented in Awada Fig. 11 described in par. 103) : configuration information ( FIG. 11 shows a representation of an example information element, which includes (b) information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources (CSI resource configuration) in the serving cell ). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of the first embodiment of Awada , by making sure that the RRC reconfiguration message from CU1 to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell includes the information element "IE" which includes information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources (CSI resource configuration) in the serving cell, as suggested by the second embodiment of Awada , in order to optimize a comparison of the serving and target cells at DU1 for deciding on cell change, in order to facilitate L1/L2 handover between cells operated by different gNB-Dus, in order to facilitate a decision at the serving cell DU about whether to change the UE from the serving cell to a target cell, avoiding a risk of an inaccurate L1/L2 mobility decision at the serving gNB-DU ( Awada par. 129-132 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim 30, Awada teaches a method (please refer to Awada's signaling diagram of Fig. 2 representing a method described in par. 102-108) of wireless communication ( Awada par. 99: 5G ) performed by a first network entity ( CU1 in Awada Fig. 2 ), the method comprising: transmitting ( by CU1 represented in Awada Fig. 2 ), to a second network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) , signaling ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ) indicating an enhanced distributed unit (eDU , not required ) or a cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) that is associated with the first network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1. Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ); receiving ( by CU1 represented in Awada Fig. 2 ), from the second network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) , information ( Awada Fig. 2 operation 2: "2: L3 Measurement Report" ) associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) the eDU or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) , wherein the information is associated with ( Claimed "associated with" is met because the associated elements are all described in par. 102-117 in reference to the same signaling diagrams of Figs. 2, 3 ) a measurement related to a user equipment (UE , UE represented in Awada Fig. 2. Par. 103 explains that the UE transmits, in operation 1, a L3 measurement report via the serving cell; DU1 forwards the L3 measurement report to the gNB-CU1 associated with DU1. All elements described in par. 102-108 are associated with each other because they all belong to the same process of Fig. 2 ) served by the eDU or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure; Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: "UE is served by a serving cell operated by gNB-DU1") ; and transmitting ( by CU1 represented in Awada Fig. 2 ), to the second network entity (Awada Fig. 2: DU1 which operates the serving cell) , configuration information ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) for the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) . The first embodiment of Awada does not explicitly teach why the information element in operation 9 of Fig. 2 comprises claimed "configuration information". However, a second embodiment of Awada teaches (please refer to the information element represented in Awada Fig. 11 described in par. 103) : configuration information ( FIG. 11 shows a representation of an example information element, which includes (b) information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources (CSI resource configuration) in the serving cell ). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of the first embodiment of Awada , by making sure that the RRC reconfiguration message from CU1 to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell includes the information element "IE" which includes information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources (CSI resource configuration) in the serving cell, as suggested by the second embodiment of Awada , in order to optimize a comparison of the serving and target cells at DU1 for deciding on cell change, in order to facilitate L1/L2 handover between cells operated by different gNB-Dus, in order to facilitate a decision at the serving cell DU about whether to change the UE from the serving cell to a target cell, avoiding a risk of an inaccurate L1/L2 mobility decision at the serving gNB-DU ( Awada par. 129-132 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 9, 12, 20, 25, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada, and further in view of Gadalin et al (publication number 2023/0180017), hereinafter Gadalin . Regarding claim 3, Awada teaches wherein the second network entity ( Awada Fig. 2: CU1 ) comprises a service ( Awada par. 100: 5G service ). Awada does not explicitly teach said service being associated with topology related functionalities for a geographical area associated with the eDU or the cell. Gadalin teaches a network entity comprising a service ( Gadalin par. 100 in reference to Fig. 4: locality orchestration service 433 which is executed to enforce locality rules 434 configured for a customer regarding a network slice on a radio- based network 103 ) being associated with topology ( Gadalin par. 103 in reference to Fig. 4: cellular topology 442 ) related functionalities for a geographical area ( Gadalin par. 103 in reference to Fig. 4: cellular topology 442 includes an arrangement of a plurality of cells 109 for a customer within a geographic area, such as one or more buildings in an organizational campus. Each geographic area 312 is specified by locality rules 434 ) associated with the eDU ( not required ) or the cell ( Gadalin par. 103 in reference to Fig. 4: cellular topology 442 includes an arrangement of a plurality of cells 109 for customers within a geographic area ). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Awada , by deploying Gadalin's locality orchestration service 433 which is executed to enforce locality rules 434 configured for a customer regarding a network slice on a radio-based network 103, as suggested by Gadalin , in order to enable customers to specify network topology locality rules, for example, an operator of a radio-based network in a particular country may provide a restricted service that allows users to call each other on a secure line that guarantees that the network traffic will never leave that the particular country, and also in order to enforce those locality rules ( Gadalin par. 12- 14 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim 9, Awada teaches signaling indicating the eDU or the cell ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ). Awada does not explicitly teach "at least one of an identifier of the eDU, an identifier of the cell, a public land mobile network identifier, a non public network identifier, a fully qualified domain name, a location identifier, a geographical position or geographical area identifier, a tracking area identifier, or a radio access network notification area identifier". Gadalin teaches wherein the signaling ( Gadalin par. 114 in reference to Fig. 6: in box 606, the locality orchestration service 433 receives one or more locality rules 434 specified by an administrative user ) indicating the eDU or the cell ( Gadalin par. 114: locality rules 434 include cells within a grid; par. 103: the cells 109 remain within geographic areas 312 specified by the locality rules 434 ) comprises at least one of an identifier of the eDU, an identifier of the cell, a public land mobile network identifier, a non public network identifier, a fully qualified domain name, a location identifier, a geographical position or geographical area identifier ( Gadalin par. 114 in reference to Fig. 4: locality rules 434 are customer-specified rules that include identifications of one or more geographic areas 312 with predefined boundaries, such as countries, states, cities, postal codes, trade areas ), a tracking area identifier, or a radio access network notification area identifier. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Awada , by deploying Gadalin's locality orchestration service 433 which is executed to enforce locality rules 434 configured for a customer regarding a network slice on a radio-based network 103, as suggested by Gadalin , in order to enable customers to specify network topology locality rules, for example, an operator of a radio-based network in a particular country may provide a restricted service that allows users to call each other on a secure line that guarantees that the network traffic will never leave that the particular country, and also in order to enforce those locality rules ( Gadalin par. 12- 14 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim 12, Awada teaches wherein the configuration information ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) for the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure) . Awada does not explicitly teach comprising a set of handover events, a set of handover thresholds, one or more values for timers associated with a handover, a barring of one or more cells, a list of one or more allowed or forbidden cells, or a coverage pattern to use for the cell. Gadalin teaches configuration information ( Gadalin par. 122: network topology based on rules 434 ) for the eDU ( not required ) or the cell ( Gadalin par. 122: The network topology based on rules 434 includes an arrangement of cells ) comprises a set of handover events, a set of handover thresholds, one or more values for timers associated with a handover, a barring of one or more cells, a list of one or more allowed or forbidden cells, or a coverage pattern to use for the cell ( Gadalin par. 122: The network topology based on rules 434 includes an arrangement of cells 109; the arrangement is determined to optimally cover a specific area such as for example the internal area of a building ). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Awada , by deploying Gadalin's locality orchestration service 433 which is executed to enforce locality rules 434 configured for a customer regarding a network slice on a radio-based network 103, as suggested by Gadalin , in order to enable customers to specify network topology locality rules, for example, an operator of a radio-based network in a particular country may provide a restricted service that allows users to call each other on a secure line that guarantees that the network traffic will never leave that the particular country, and also in order to enforce those locality rules ( Gadalin par. 12- 14 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim 20, Awada teaches wherein the first network entity ( CU1 in Awada Fig. 2 ) comprises a service ( Awada par. 100: 5G service ). Awada does not explicitly teach said service being associated with topology related functionalities for a geographical area associated with the eDU or the cell. Gadalin teaches a network entity comprising a service ( Gadalin par. 100 in reference to Fig. 4: locality orchestration service 433 which is executed to enforce locality rules 434 configured for a customer regarding a network slice on a radio-based network 103 ) being associated with topology ( Gadalin par. 103 in reference to Fig. 4: cellular topology 442 ) related functionalities for a geographical area ( Gadalin par. 103 in reference to Fig. 4: cellular topology 442 includes an arrangement of a plurality of cells 109 for a customer within a geographic area, such as one or more buildings in an organizational campus. Each geographic area 312 is specified by locality rules 434 ) associated with the eDU ( not required ) or the cell ( Gadalin par. 103 in reference to Fig. 4: cellular topology 442 includes an arrangement of a plurality of cells 109 for customers within a geographic area ). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Awada , by deploying Gadalin's locality orchestration service 433 which is executed to enforce locality rules 434 configured for a customer regarding a network slice on a radio-based network 103, as suggested by Gadalin , in order to enable customers to specify network topology locality rules, for example, an operator of a radio-based network in a particular country may provide a restricted service that allows users to call each other on a secure line that guarantees that the network traffic will never leave that the particular country, and also in order to enforce those locality rules ( Gadalin par. 12- 14 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim 25, Awada teaches signaling indicating the eDU or the cell ( Awada par. 109-110 in reference to Fig. 3: in operation 1, DU1 – the DU operating the cell serving the UE - receives from CU1 a CSI Configuration Request message requesting information about L1/2 mobility measurement reporting configuration in the serving cell, and information about serving cell resources for L1/2 inter-cell mobility measurements in the serving cell ). Awada does not explicitly teach "at least one of an identifier of the eDU, an identifier of the cell, a public land mobile network identifier, a non public network identifier, a fully qualified domain name, a location identifier, a geographical position or geographical area identifier, a tracking area identifier, or a radio access network notification area identifier". Gadalin teaches wherein the signaling ( Gadalin par. 114 in reference to Fig. 6: in box 606, the locality orchestration service 433 receives one or more locality rules 434 specified by an administrative user ) indicating the eDU or the cell ( Gadalin par. 114: locality rules 434 include cells within a grid; par. 103: the cells 109 remain within geographic areas 312 specified by the locality rules 434 ) comprises at least one of an identifier of the eDU, an identifier of the cell, a public land mobile network identifier, a non public network identifier, a fully qualified domain name, a location identifier, a geographical position or geographical area identifier ( Gadalin par. 114 in reference to Fig. 4: locality rules 434 are customer-specified rules that include identifications of one or more geographic areas 312 with predefined boundaries, such as countries, states, cities, postal codes, trade areas ), a tracking area identifier, or a radio access network notification area identifier. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Awada , by deploying Gadalin's locality orchestration service 433 which is executed to enforce locality rules 434 configured for a customer regarding a network slice on a radio-based network 103, as suggested by Gadalin , in order to enable customers to specify network topology locality rules, for example, an operator of a radio-based network in a particular country may provide a restricted service that allows users to call each other on a secure line that guarantees that the network traffic will never leave that the particular country, and also in order to enforce those locality rules ( Gadalin par. 12- 14 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim 28, Awada teaches wherein the configuration information ( Awada par. 103 in reference to Fig. 2: in operation 9, CU1 sends the information element "IE" in a L3 RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE via DU1 and the serving cell. The information element "IE" includes CSI resource configuration information about L1/2 mobility measurement resources in the serving cell operated by DU1 ) for the eDU ( not required ) or the cell (serving cell described in Awada par. 102-108 in reference to Fig. 2, even though the serving cell is not explicitly displayed on the figure). Awada does not explicitly teach comprising a set of handover events, a set of handover thresholds, one or more values for timers associated with a handover, a barring of one or more cells, a list of one or more allowed or forbidden cells, or a coverage pattern to use for the cell. Gadalin teaches configuration information ( Gadalin par. 122: network topology based on rules 434 ) for the eDU ( not required ) or the cell ( Gadalin par. 122: The network topology based on rules 434 includes an arrangement of cells ) comprises a set of handover events, a set of handover thresholds, one or more values for timers associated with a handover, a barring of one or more cells, a list of one or more allowed or forbidden cells, or a coverage pattern to use for the cell ( Gadalin par. 122: The network topology based on rules 434 includes an arrangement of cells 109; the arrangement is determined to optimally cover a specific area such as for example the internal area of a building ). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Awada , by deploying Gadalin's locality orchestration service 433 which is executed to enforce locality rules 434 configured for a customer regarding a network slice on a radio-based network 103, as suggested by Gadalin , in order to enable customers to specify network topology locality rules, for example, an operator of a radio-based network in a particular country may provide a restricted service that allows users to call each other on a secure line that guarantees that the network traffic will never leave that the particular country, and also in order to enforce those locality rules ( Gadalin par. 12- 14 ). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. 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. /RONALD EISNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 2 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 3 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 4 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 5 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 6 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 7 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 8 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 9 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 10 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 11 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 12 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 13 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 14 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 15 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 16 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 17 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 18 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 19 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 20 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 21 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 22 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 23 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 24 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 25 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 26 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 27 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 28 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 29 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 30 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 31 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 32 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 33 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 34 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 35 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 36 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 37 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 38 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 39 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 40 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 41 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 42 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 43 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 44 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 45 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 46 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 47 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 48 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 49 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 50 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 51 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 52 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/586,328 Page 53 Art Unit: 2644
Prosecution Insights