Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 3/08/2024
This application is filed on 3/08/2024 and claims the Domestic Benefit with the Earliest Benefit Date on 3/20/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 8 recite “receiving, from a base station (BS) via a dedicated system information, a first system information block (SIB) including terrestrial network (TN) coverage information based on a determination that the common search space is not configured for an active bandwidth part (BWP)”.
The “based on a determination that the common search space is not configured for an active bandwidth part (BWP)” clauses indicates that the associated limitations occur only when the criteria of these clauses are met. However, the present claims never affirmatively require such events to occur. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations does not require these conditional steps to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) (MPEP 2111.04 II) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. As such, the limitation preceding “based on a determination that the common search space is not configured for the active BWP” clause does not appear to have patentable weight since it is contingent upon a condition occurring. Examiner suggests “determine that a common search space is not configured for an active bandwidth part (BWP)… based on the determining
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the 3GPP Technical Standards: "3GPP TS 38.331 V17.3.0" published on 12/2022 (hereinafter TS.331) in view of "3GPP TS 38.300 V17.3.0” published on 12/2022 (hereinafter TS.300) and in view of Kumar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20230068504 A1, published on 03/02/2023 (hereinafter Kumar)
As for Independent claim 1: TS.331 discloses
“A user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a processor configured to determine whether a common search space is configured for an active bandwidth part (BWP)..."
(TS.331, section 5.2.1 discloses "For a UE in RRC_CONNECTED, the network can provide system information through dedicated signaling using the RRCReconfiguration message, e.g. if the UE has an active BWP with no common search space configured to monitor system information, paging, or upon request from the UE". This describes a UE in a 5G NR system configured to monitor for system information, and explicitly defines the procedure where a UE determines if it can receive system information via broadcast or if it must receive it via dedicated signaling based on its BWP configuration. In the 3GPP architecture, for a UE to comply with the "if" condition, its processor must inherently perform a determination of its current BWP configuration to decide whether to monitor for broadcasted SIBs or wait for dedicated RRC signaling; UE has a processor)
TS.331 does not appear to explicitly disclose method and system comprising a transceiver operably coupled to the processor.
However, Kumar discloses the UE equipment in a wireless communication system.
“A user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a processor”
(Kumar’s abstract discloses “One aspect provides a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE)”. This explicitly defines the apparatus as a user equipment (UE) in the claim limitation; [0002] disclose “present disclosure relate to wireless communications, and more particularly… in non-terrestrial networks (NTNs)” This defines as pertaining to wireless communication systems; and claim 23 discloses “An apparatus for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory,…” along with the FIG. 2 from the arts describe the hardware architecture of the UE as including a processor and memory to perform its communication tasks.); and
a transceiver operably coupled to the processor (“UE 104 may receive the beamformed signal from the base station 180 in one or more receive directions 182″. UE 104 may also transmit a beamformed signal to the base station 180 in one or more transmit directions 182”, UE capable of transmitting and receiving as shown in fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kumar with TS.331 to come up with the UE equipment in a wireless communication system. One would have been motivated to make such a combination that would find this technology implementation is obvious because this architecturally bound by the 3GPP hierarchy. Once it is determined that TN coverage information is to be delivered via a SIB other than SIB1, the categorization of that information as "Other SI" is mandatory and automatic. Therefore, this is a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
1022
media_image1.png
Greyscale
TS.331 does not appear to explicitly disclose method and system comprising configured to receive, from a base station (BS) via a dedicated system information, a first system information block (SIB) including terrestrial network (TN) coverage information based on a determination that the common search space is not configured for the active BWP.
However, TS.300 discloses method and system:
“...configured to receive, from a base station (BS) via a dedicated system information, a first system information block (SIB) including terrestrial network (TN) coverage information based on a determination that the common search space is not configured for the active BWP"
(TS.300 Section 7.3.1 discloses "SIB19 contains NTN-specific parameters for serving cell and optionally NTN-specific parameters for neighbour cells as defined in TS 38.331 [12].”; This confirms that the "first SIB" (contextually SIB19 or a specialized SIB for NTN-TN interworking) is defined as the container for network coverage parameters, especially ephemeris and neighbor cell information... (TN coverage information). Section 7.3.2 discloses “For UEs in RRC_CONNECTED, a request for Other SI may be sent to the network, if configured by the network, in a dedicated manner (i.e., via UL-DCCH) and the granularity of the request is one SIB. The gNB (Base station, BS) may respond with an RRCReconfiguration including the requested SIB(s)”. The standard explicitly defines the scenario where a UE receives system information through dedicated signaling due to a BWP configuration lacking a common search space.)
“... Identify that the TN coverage information belongs to other system information (SI)."
(TS.300 section 7.3.1 discloses "Other SI consists of SIB2 to SIB21... SIB19 contains NTN specific parameters.” The 3GPP standard establishes that information related to network coverage-specifically for Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) and Terrestrial Network (TN) interworking-is carried in specific System Information Blocks (SIBs), primarily SIB19. It also classifies all supplemental SIBs-including those carrying location information for specialized access (TN coverage information)- as "other SI" ...These confirm that the specialized TN coverage information (ephemeris, neighbor cell configs) resides within a secondary SIB; furthermore, the identification of coverage information as "Other SI" is an inherent technical fact of the 3GPP protocol; hence, it confirms the SIB19 and other secondary SIBs as part of "Other SI".)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS.331 with TS.300 and Kumar to come up with the UE equipment in a wireless communication system. One would have been motivated to make such a combination that would find this technology implementation is obvious because this architecturally bound by the 3GPP hierarchy. Once it is determined that TN coverage information is to be delivered via a SIB other than SIB1, the categorization of that information as "Other SI" is mandatory and automatic. Therefore, this is a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
As for claim 2, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above.
TS.300 discloses "The UE of claim 1, wherein, when the UE is connected to a TN:"
(TS.300 Section 4.5 discloses "NG-RAN supports Multi-Radio Dual Connectivity (MR-DC) operation whereby a UE in RRC CONNECTED...located in two different NG-RAN nodes...". In the context of 3GPP Release 17, a "TN" refers to the standard terrestrial NG-RAN. The term "connected to a TN" in the claim is technically mapped to a UE in the RRC_CONNECTED state within a cell that does not provide ntn-Config in its system information.)
“The transceiver is further configured to receive a second SIB via a periodic broadcast signaling, a broadcast on-demand signaling, or a dedicated signaling;"
(TS.300, section 7.3.1 discloses "Other SI encompasses all SIBs not broadcast in the Minimum SI. Those SIBs can either be periodically broadcast on DL-SCH. broadcast on-demand on DL-SCH (i.e. upon request from UEs in RRC_IDLE, RRC_INACTIVE, or RRC_CONNECTED), or sent in a dedicated manner on DL-SCH to UEs in RRC_CONNECTED (i.e., upon request, if configured by the network, from UEs in RRC_ CONNECTED or when the UE has an active BWP with no common search space configured...': This discloses explicitly list "periodic broadcast," "on-demand broadcast," and "dedicated manner/signaling" as the three valid paths for receiving a second SIB. It also establishes that the transceiver is architecturally required to support these three specific reception modes to be 3GPP-compliant. In 3GPP architecture, a "second SIB" (any SIB other than MIB and SIB1) is classified as Other SI)
“...the second SIB comprises an SIB19 that includes NTN-specific parameters for NTN neighbor cells;"
(TS.300 section 7.3.1 discloses "SIB19 contains NTN-specific parameters for serving cell and optionally NTN-specific parameters for neighbour cells as defined in TS 38.331 [12].': This defines SIB19 as the specific (second SIB) block containing NTN-specific information. In the 5G NR architecture, SIBs are categorized into Minimum SI (MIB and SIB1) and Other SI (SIB2 through SIB21). SIB19 is a specific "Other SI" block introduced in Release 17. )
“... and the SIB19 belongs to the other SI."
(TS.300 section 7.3.1 disclose "For non-terrestrial network, Other SI also includes: S1B19 contains NTN-specific parameters for serving cell and optionally NTN-specific parameters for neighbour cells as defined in TS38.331 [12]”. This explicitly categorizes SIB19 within the "Other SI". System Information (SI) consists of a MIB and a number of SIBs, which are divided into Minimum SI and Other SI. "Minimum SI" is strictly limited to the Master Information Block (MIB) and SIB1. Every other System Information Block (SIB) introduced in the standard is categorized as "Other SI.")
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS.300 with TS.331 and Kumar to apply these procedures to a UE "connected to a TN," as this represents a baseline operational state for any 5G NR device; and the use of SIB19 to provide NTN- specific parameters for neighbor cells because the 3GPP standard defined SIB19 as the only standardized location for this information, but the claim does not describe a novel data structure or a unique way of organizing neighbor cell info; it merely names the existing 3GPP container (SIB19) and recites its standard-defined content, and providing neighbor cell parameters in a SIB to support mobility is a fundamental feature of all 3GPP releases (e.g., SIB3/4 for Terrestrial Networks). Applying this known concept to NTN by using SIB 19 is a routine and predictable technical application of the Release 17 framework. Furthermore, the claim merely recites an exhaustive list of all standardized 3GPP delivery methods—broadcast, on-demand, and dedicated. Because any standard-compliant transceiver must support these pathways to function within the 5G protocol suite, it is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
As for claim 3, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above.
TS.300 discloses:
"The UE of claim 1, wherein, when the UE is connected to an air to ground (ATG) network:"
(TS.300 Section 3.2 disclose “non-terrestrial network: an NG-RAN consisting of gNBs, which provide non-terrestrial NR access to UEs by means of an NTN payload embarked on an airborne or space-borne NTN vehicle and an NTN Gateway… High Altitude Platform Station (HAPS) airborne vehicle embarking the NTN payload placed at an altitude between 8 and 50 km.”. This establishes the definition of networks that utilize airborne platforms (such as aircraft or HAPS) to provide connectivity, which is the functional definition of an Air-to-Ground network. Fig. B.4-1 disclose UE is connected to an air to ground (ATG) network)
PNG
media_image2.png
357
867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“…the transceiver is further configured to receive a second SIB including location information for an ATG network access via a periodic broadcasting signaling, a broadcast on-demand signaling, or a dedicated signaling;"
(TS.300 section 7.3.1 discloses "Other SI encompasses all SIBs not broadcast in the Minimum SI. Those SIBs can either be periodically broadcast on DL- SCH, broadcast on-demand on DL-SCH (i.e. upon request from UEs in RRC_IDLE, RRC_INACTIVE, or RRC_CONNECTED), or sent in a dedicated manner on DL-SCH to UEs in RRC_CONNECTED (i.e., upon request, if configured by the network, from UEs in RRC_CONNECTED or when the UE has an active BWP with no common search space configured...)'. The discloses explicitly list "periodic broadcast," "on-demand broadcast," and "dedicated manner/signaling" as the three valid paths for receiving a second SIB. And any 5G transceiver is architecturally required to support these modes to be compliant with the protocol defined in 3GPP.)
“…and the second SIB belongs to the other SI."
(TS.300 section 7.3.1 discloses "System Information (SI) consists of a MIB and a number of SIBs, which are divided into Minimum SI and Other SI: Minimum SI comprises MIB and SIB1; Other SI comprises SIB2 to SIB21 ... Other SI consists of SIB2 to SIB21... SIB19 contains NTN specific parameters." This explicitly classifies all supplemental SIBs-including those carrying location information for specialized access-as "other SI". Also, because SIB1 is the only SIB classified as "Minimum SI," any "second SIB" providing specialized network data (like TN/NTN coverage) is architecturally required to be "Other SI.").
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to combine TS.300 to TS.331 and Kumar to apply specialized signaling logic—such as the delivery of terrestrial network coverage information—to a UE connected to an Air-to-Ground (ATG) network, as 3GPP Release 17 explicitly categorizes airborne networks as a standard Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) deployment model. Implementing this connection via mandatory RRC protocol procedures for cell identification is a routine application of the 5G NR framework, in which a device merely selects between standard-defined NTN scenarios (Airborne or Spaceborne). Furthermore, the classification of SIB19 as "Other SI" is a mandatory structural requirement of the 3GPP architecture; the 5G NR hierarchy dictates that any SIB other than SIB1 inherently belongs to the "Other SI" category. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
As for claim 4, TS.331 discloses
"The UE of claim 1, wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive, from a source cell, a broadcast configuration including addition, modification, or release list of one or more handover (HO) target cells; "
(TS.331 Section 6.3.1 discloses "intraFreqNeighCelllist List of intra- frequency neighbouring cells with specific cell re-selection parameters" confirms that the network provides lists of neighboring cells (potential HO targets) via broadcast system information blocks. Section 6.3.2 discloses ""cellsToRemove list PC I-List OPTIONAL, -- Need N cellsToAdd Modlist CellsToAddModlist OPTIONAL, -- Need N ". Provides the protocol evidence for the "addition, modification, or release list" disclosed in this claim element. These exact terms are used in the data structures that define how a network updates a UE's list of neighboring or target cells.)
“…the processor is further configured to add, modify, or release target cells for a HO operation based on the broadcast configuration."
(TS.331 Section 5.3.5.13.2 discloses “"The UE shall: 1> if the condReconfigToRemoveList is included: 2> for each condReconfigId included in the condReconfigToRemoveList: 3> remove the entry with the matching condReconfigId from the VarCondReconfig in the UE variable; 1> if the condReconfigToAddModList is included: 2> for each condReconfigToAddMod included in the condReconfigToAddModList: 3> if an entry with the matching condReconfigId exists...: 4> replace the entry... 3> else: 4> add a new entry...” The specification describes the UE's mandatory processing of the condReconfigToAddModList and condReconfigToRemoveList. In 3GPP terminology, adding an existing ID “replaces” (modifies) the configuration, and "removing" an entry from the list constitutes a "release." Also, the UE acquires its "broadcast configuration" (System Information/SIBs) via dedicated signaling when it lacks a common search space as established in claim1 above.)
TS.331 does not appear to explicitly disclose method and device comprising “broadcast configuration of one or more handover (HO) target cells”
However, TS300 discloses method and device comprising
“…broadcast configuration … of one or more handover (HO) target cells”
(TS.300 Section 16 .1 4.3.3 discloses "The network can configure: assistance information (e.g., ephemeris, Common TA parameters) provided in SIB19 for UE to perform measurement on neighbour cells in RRC_IDLE / RRC_I NACTIVE / RRC_CONNECTED". The 3GPP standard identifies that the purpose of broadcasting these neighbor lists is to enable the UE to perform measurements on potential targets for upcoming mobility events (Handover). By providing the neighbor list and assistance data in SIB19, the network configures the UE to identify and measure the "one or more HO target cells" recited in the claim.). Furthermore, Section 7.3.1 discloses “SIB4 contains information about other NR frequencies and inter-frequency neighboring cells… SIB19 contains NTN-specific parameters for serving cell and optionally NTN-specific parameters for neighbour cells.”. While these lists are traditionally sent via dedicated signaling, the 5G NR architecture explicitly designates SIB4 and SIB19 as the broadcast vehicles for neighbor cell information used in mobility.)
“…based on the broadcast configuration.
(TS.300 Section 7 .3. 1 discloses "Other SI encompasses all SIBs not broadcast in the Minimum SI. Those SIBs can either be periodically broadcast on DL-SCH, broadcast on-demand... SIB4 contains information about other NR frequencies and inter-frequency neighboring cells ... SIB1 9 contains NTN- specific parameters for serving cell and optionally NTN-specific parameters for neighbor cells." The 5G NR architecture defines "Other SI" (SIB2-SIB21) as the vehicle for broadcasted configurations that support mobility.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine TS.331 with TS.300 to arrive at the claimed invention. In the 5G NR architecture, one would recognize that "Other SI" (such as SIB4 and SIB19) serves as the standardized vehicle for delivering neighbor cell lists and assistance data to the UE to support mobility. It is a routine and predictable application of the standard to utilize this "broadcast configuration" to populate the specific protocol data structures (such as cellsToAddModList and cellsToRemoveList) defined in TS.331. Furthermore, because the RRC protocol mandates that the UE processor must internally maintain the state of these potential handover targets by adding, modifying (replacing), or releasing (removing) entries within UE variables like VarCondReconfig or VarMeasConfig, combining these references simply follows the standard’s established functional flow: receiving broadcasted parameters to trigger the mandatory internal management of handover target cells. This integration represents a known optimization for signaling efficiency in 5G and NTN environments, where using broadcasted lists to manage target cell state is a fundamental requirement for 3GPP-compliant connectivity. Hence, this is a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
As for claim 5, TS.331 discloses
"The UE of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to maintain a variable by adding, modifying, or releasing the target cells..."
(TS.331 section 7.4 discloses ""The UE variable VarMeasConfig includes the accumulated configuration of the measurements to be performed by the UE ... The UE variable VarConditionalReconfig includes the accumulated configuration of the conditional re configurations.". The 3GPP standard explicitly defines "UE variables" as internal data structures used to store configurations received from the network. The most relevant variables for mobility and target cells are VarMeasConfig (for measurement-based HO) and VaConditionalReconfig (for CHO). This verifies the "variable" limitation. The UE does not merely-act on a message; it must store the state internally to evaluate when to trigger a handover. Section 5.2.2.3 discloses "if an entry with the matching measld exists in the measldlist within the VarMeasConfig: 3> replace the entry with the value received for this measld; 2> else: 3> add a new entry for this measId within the Va rMeasConfig;". This provides the literal step- by-step instructions for the processor to add/modify these variables; Section 5.5.2.2 "The UE shall: 1 > for each measObjectld in cluded in the received measObjectToRemovelist that is part of measObjectlist in Va rMeasConfig: 2> remove the entry with the matching measObjectld from the measObjectlist within the VarMeasConfig". This provides the literal step-by-step instructions for the processor to remove these variables. Section 6. 3.2 discloses "cellsToAddModlist List of cells to add/modify in the neighbour cell list. cellsToRemovelist List of cells to remove from the neighbour cell list.". This IE definition links the variable maintenance logic directly to the "target cells" list mentioned in the claim. Thus, TS .331 explicitly uses the term "variable" (e.g., VarMeasConfig) and d escribes the "add," "mod," and "remove" (release) operations required to maintain it.)
TS.331 does not appear to explicitly disclose method and device configured to maintain a variable based on the broadcast configuration for the HO operation.”
However, TS.300 discloses method and device configured to maintain a variable
“...based on the broadcast configuration for the HO operation.”
(TS.300 Section 7.3.1 discloses “Other SI encompasses all SIBs not broadcast in the Minimum SI. Those SIBs can either be periodically broadcast on DL-SCH, broadcast on-demand… SIB4 contains information about other NR frequencies and inter-frequency neighboring cells ... SIB19 contains NTN-specific parameters for serving cell and optionally NTN-specific parameters for neighbour cells.” The 5G NR architecture defines "Other SI" (SIBs 2–21) as the vehicle for broadcasted configurations that support mobility. Specifically, SIB4 and SIB19 are designated for neighbor cell information and NTN-specific mobility parameters. The quotation explicitly identifies the SIBs that constitute the "broadcast configuration" for neighbor cells and mobility assistance.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS.300 with TS.331 and Kumar. In 5G NR, a UE cannot "maintain a variable" for target cells in a vacuum; it requires physical layer parameters (frequencies, cell IDs) to populate those variables. Since R1 defines the step-by-step logic for adding, replacing (modifying), and removing these configurations within UE variables (VarMeasConfig/VarConditionalReconfig), and R2 identifies the "broadcast configuration" (SIB4/SIB19) as the source of neighbor cell parameters, combining them is a predictable application of the 3GPP mobility framework. The variable maintenance is the mandatory internal processing of the information received via the broadcasted system information. Hence, this is a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
As for claim 6: TS.331 discloses
"The UE of claim 5, wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive a HO command or a conditional handover (CHO) command..."
(TS.331 section 5.3.5.3 discloses "if the RRCReconfiguration includes the reconfigurationWithSync... the UE shall: 2> perform reconfiguration with sync as specified in 5.3.5.5.2"; that exp licitly defines the procedures for receiving an RRCReconfiguration message that includes a reconfigurationWithSync (HO command) "1 > if the RRCReconfiguration message includes the conditionalReconfiguration: 2> perform conditional reconfiguration as specified in 5.3.5.1 3;" for a conditional Reconfiguration (CHO command). In 5G NR, a "Handover Command" is not a standalone message but is technically defined as an RRCReconfiguration message that includes the reconfigurationWithSync inf rmation element (IE); Similarly, a "CHO command" is an RRCReconfiguration message containing the conditionalReconfiguration IE, which provides the triggers and target cell configurations for future execution.)
“...to identify a target cell based on the variable."
(TS. 331 section 5.3.5.13.4 discloses ""The UE shall: 1> for each condReconfigld within the VarConditionalReconfig: ... 3> consider the target cell within the stored condRRCRecongig, associated to that condReconfigld, as a triggered cell;". This confirms the procedure where the UE identifies a specific "target cell" from a pool of candidates by matching it to a triggered configuration ID. Section 7.4 further discloses ""The UE variable VarConditionalReconfig includes the accumulated configuration of the conditional reconfigurations... The UE variable VarMeasConfig includes the accumulated configuration of the measurements to be performed by the UE.". The 3GPP standard utilizes "UE Variables" as the internal database for this logic. For mobility, the primary variables are VarMeasConfig and VarConditionalReconfig.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine TS.331 with TS.300 and Kumar to implement the transceiver and processor logic defined in the 3GPP standard to receive a handover (HO) or conditional handover (CHO) command and subsequently identify a target cell based on an internal UE variable. In the 5G NR RRC protocol (TS 38.331), these commands are technically embodied as RRCReconfiguration messages containing specific Information Elements (reconfigurationWithSync for HO or conditionalReconfiguration for CHO). A PHOSITA would recognize that the mandatory procedure for a UE to transition from a candidate configuration to an active execution requires referencing its internal "UE Variables"—specifically VarConditionalReconfig—to identify the correct target cell associated with a triggered configuration ID. This architecture is a fundamental requirement of the 3GPP mobility framework, ensuring the UE can accurately select and synchronize with a target cell from its stored database of configurations. Combining these elements represents a routine application of standard-defined signaling to achieve the mandatory functional result of reliable cell transition in a 5G network. Hence, this is a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
As for claim 7, TS.331 discloses
"The UE of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to: execute a HO operation to the target cell;”
(TS.331 section 5.3.5.3 discloses "If the RRCReconfiguration message includes the reconfigurationWithSync, the UE shall: 1 > perform re configuration with sync as specified in 5.3.5.5.2;" In 5G NR, the "execution" of a handover is technically defined as the "reconfiguration with sync" procedure. This is triggered by the reception of an RRCReconfiguration message containing the reconfigurationWithSync information element. Thus, this establishes the mandatory protocol trigge r that requires the processor to move from the source cell to the target cell. Section 5.3.5.5.2 discloses "The UE shall perform the following actions to execute a reconfiguration with sync: ... 3> start timer T304 with the timer value set to t304, as included in the reconfigurationWithSync; ... 1 > configure lower layers for the target SpCell...". This confirms the procedural steps the processor takes to physically "execute" the HO. The reference provided in your inquiry (Section 5.7.10.6) also confirms this by acknowledging the UE's state "before executing the last reconfiguration with sync," linking execution to the standard synchronization process.)
“... and apply the broadcast configuration and a configuration included in the HO command or the CHO command."
(TS.331 section 5.3.5.5.2 discloses "The UE shall:3> configure lower layers in accordance with the received spCellConfigCommon; 3> configure lower layers for the target SpCell in accordance with any additional fields... if included in the received reconfigurationWithSync.". The spCellConfigCommon contains the "common" parameters that define a cell's broadcasted identity; and the RRC protocol specifies that the handover command (reconfigurationWithSync) contains the dedicated/user-specific configuration that is applied simultaneously with the common parameters. When a UE receives a HO (or a CHO) command, it utilizes parameters already stored from system information (broadcast) and supplements them with dedicated parameters in the HO (or a CHO) command. )
TS.331 does not appear to explicitly disclose method and device configured to execute CHO command.”
However, TS.300 discloses method and device configure to execute
“the CHO command."
(TS.300 section 9.2.3. 1 discloses "When initial CHO execution attempt fails or HO fails, the UE performs cell selection, and if the selected cell is a CHO candidate and if network configured the UE to try CHO after handover/CHO failure, then the UE attempts" renders that the configuration includes HO/CHO commands in the broadcast information.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine TS.300 with TS.331 and Kumar to configure a UE processor to execute a handover (HO) by applying a combination of broadcast and dedicated configurations as taught by TS 38.331 in view of TS 38.300. One would recognize that the technical "execution" of a handover is defined by the "reconfiguration with sync" procedure, which necessitates the simultaneous application of target cell parameters to achieve synchronization. It is a routine and predictable practice in 5G NR to deliver the "broadcast configuration" (specifically via the spCellConfigCommon Information Element) within the dedicated HO or CHO command. This ensures the UE possesses all necessary common parameters for the target cell immediately, avoiding the signaling latency required to read the target cell’s physical broadcast channel. Combining these references simply follows the standard’s established functional requirements for seamless mobility, where the delivery of broadcast-type information through a dedicated signaling pathway is a known and mandatory optimization to ensure successful transition to a target cell; Thus, this is a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
As for Independent claim 8
Claim 8 reflects the method of a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 9
As for claim 9, limitation of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 9 reflects the method of receiving a second SIB via a periodic broadcast signaling, a broadcast on-demand signaling, or a dedicated signaling when connected to TN network as claimed in claim 2, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 10:
As for claim 1 0, limitation of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 1 O reflects the method of receiving a second SIB via a periodic broadcast signaling, a broadcast on-demand signaling, or a dedicated signaling when connected to ATG network as claimed in claim 3, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 11
As for claim 11, limitation of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 11 reflects the method of receiving, from a source cell, a broadcast configuration including addition, modification, or release list of one or more handover (HO) target cells as claimed in claim 4, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 12:
As for claim 1 2, limitation of parent claim 11 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects the method of maintaining a variable by adding, modifying, or releasing the target cells... as claimed in claim 5, and is rejected a long the same rationale.
As for claim 13
As for claim 1 3, limitation of parent claim 12 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects the method of receiving a HO command or a conditional handover (CHO) command ... as claimed in claim 6, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 14
As for claim 14, limitation of parent claim 13 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects the method of executing a HO operation to the target cell and applying the broadcast configuration and a configuration included in the HO command or the CHO command as claimed in claim 7, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for Independent claim 15, Kumar discloses the BS equipment in a wireless communication system.
“A base station (BS) in a wireless communication system, the BS comprising: a processor configured to generate…and the transceiver configured to transmit”
(Kumar [0163] discloses “processing system 1105 components, such as: the one or more processors 1110 in FIG. 11, or aspects of the base station 102 depicted in FIG. 2, including receive processor 238, transmit processor…”; [0211] discloses “communication device may be a base station 102 as described, for example with respect to FIGS. 1 and 2… Communications device 1500 includes a processing system 1505 coupled to a transceiver 1545 (e.g., a transmitter and/or a receiver)”. This describes the internal structure of the base station (gNB), explicitly identifying a controller that comprises at least one processor. This processor is responsible for the operations of the base station, including the generation of signaling. Kumar in FIG. 2 discloses the “BASE STATION” that comprises a processor)
PNG
media_image1.png
615
1022
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kumar does not appear to explicitly disclose method and device comprising “…a first system information block (SIB) including terrestrial network (TN) coverage information; transmit, to a user equipment (UE) via a dedicated system information, the first SIB including the TN coverage information, wherein a common search space is not configured for an active bandwidth part (BWP}, and wherein the TN coverage information belongs to other system information (SI)”.
However, TS.300 discloses:
“…a first system information block (SIB) including terrestrial network (TN) coverage information;”
(TS.300 Section 7.3.1 discloses "SIB19 contains NTN-specific parameters for serving cell and optionally NTN-specific parameters for neighbour cells as defined in TS 38.331 [12].”; This confirms that the "first SIB" (contextually SIB19 or a specialized SIB for NTN-TN interworking) is defined as the container for network coverage parameters, especially ephemeris and neighbor cell information... (TN coverage information).
"…
(TS. 300 section 6. 1 discloses “The physical layer offers to the MAC sublayer transport channels; the MAC sublayer offers to the RLC sublayer logical channels.". This establishes the mandatory functional interface between the processor (hosting the MAC/RRC protocol layers) and the transceiver (the physical layer/PHY). In gNB architecture, these layers must be "operably coupled" to facilitate the flow of data from protocol logic to radio transmission. Section 7.3.1 discloses "Other SI encompasses all SIBs not broadcast in the Minimum SI. Those SIBs can either be broadcast ... or sent in a dedicated manner on DL-SCH to UEs in RRC_CONNECTED (i. e., upon request, if configured by the network, from UEs in RRC_CON NECTED or when the UE has an active BWP with no common search space configured.". This establishes "dedicated system information" as a standardized signaling pathway (typically via an RRCReconfiguration message) for delivering SIBs. Furthermore, section 7.3.1 discloses "SIB19 contains NTN-specific parameters for serving cell and optionally NTN-specific parameters for neighbour cells as defined in TS 38.331 [1 2]."; This confirms that the "first SIB" (contextually SIB1 9 or a specialized SI B for NTN-TN interworking) is defined as the container for network coverage parameters, especially ephemeris and neighbor cell information (TN coverage information) as in section 16.14.3 discloses “The NTN ephemeris is provided in SIB19. It includes serving cell's NTN payload ephemeris and optionally neighbouring cell's NTN payload ephemeris.").
“...wherein a common search space is not configured for an active bandwidth part (BWP},"
(TS.300 section 7.3.1 discloses "…sent in a dedicated manner on DL-SCH to UEs in RRC_CONNECTED (i.e., upon request, if configured by the network, from UEs in RC_CONNECTED or when the UE has an active BWP with no common search space configured". This specifies the exact network condition under which a base station is required to switch from broadcast to dedicated system information delivery when the UE's active BWP not configured for a common search space.)
“... and wherein the TN coverage information belongs to other system information (SI) "
(TS.300 section 7. 3.1 discloses "System Information (SI) consists of a MIB and a number of SIBs, which are divided into Minimum SI and Other SI: ... Other SI encompass all SIBs and posSIBs not broadcast in the Minimum SI. Other SI consists of SIB2 to SIB21 ... SIB19 contains NTN specific parameters". This classifies all SIBs that provide supplemental assistance data, like SI B19 for NTN/TN parameters, as "other SI.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS.300 with Kumar to recognize that a standard-compliant base station, comprising a processor operably coupled to a transceiver as disclosed in Kumar, is a necessary prerequisite for implementing the 3GPP signaling procedures required for 5G Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN). Since TS.300 mandates that terrestrial network (TN) coverage information be included in SIB19—which is categorized as Other SI—the PHOSITA would be motivated to configure the processor to generate this specific data and the transceiver to deliver it according to the UE's operational state. Furthermore, because TS.300 teaches that system information must be delivered via dedicated system information (e.g., dedicated RRC signaling) when a common search space is not configured for an active BWP, the inclusion of this conditional trigger represents a routine application of standardized protocol logic to ensure reliable communication. Combining these teachings merely integrates a known hardware framework with mandatory signaling procedures to solve the predictable problem of maintaining connectivity for UEs in specialized BWP configurations, resulting in a standard-essential base station operation. Hence, this is a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
As for claim 16
As for claim 1 6, limitation of parent claim 15 have been discussed above. Claim 16 reflects the method of transmit a second SIB via a periodic broadcast signaling, a broadcast on-demand signaling as claimed in claim 2, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 17:
As for claim 17, limitation of parent claim 15 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects the connection to an air to ground (ATG) network and the transceiver is further configured to transmit a second SIB including location information f r an ATG network access via a periodic broadcasting signaling, a broadcast on- demand signaling, or a dedicated signaling ... as claimed in claim 3, and is rejected a long the same rationale.
As for claim 18, TS.331 discloses
"The BS of claim 15, wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit, to the UE, a broadcast configuration including addition, modification, or release list of one or more handover (HO) target cells."
(TS.331 Section 6.3.1 discloses “intraFreqNeighCellList List of intra-frequency neighbouring cells with specific cell re-selection parameters” confirms that the network provides lists of neighboring cells (potential HO targets) via broadcast system information blocks. Section 6.3.2 discloses “"cellsToRemoveList PCI-List OPTIONAL, -- Need N cellsToAddModList CellsToAddModList OPTIONAL, -- Need N". Provides the protocol evidence for the "addition, modification, or release list" mentioned in the claim.)
TS.331 does not appear to explicitly disclose the BS to transmit… list of one or more handover (HO) target cells."
However, TS.300 discloses:
“…broadcast configuration… list of one or more handover (HO) target cells.”
(TS.300 Section 16.14.3.3. discloses "The network can configure: assistance information (e.g., ephemeris, Common TA parameters) provided in SIB19 for UE to perform measurement on neighbour cells in RRC_IDLE/RRC_INACTIVE/RRC_CONNECTED ". This explicitly identifies that the network provides assistance data in SIB19 for the UE to perform measurements on neighbour cells. In the context of 5G mobility, these neighbor cells are the candidate "HO target cells." Since SIB19 is a broadcasted block, this satisfies the "broadcast configuration" of HO target cells.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS.300 with TS.331 to implement a method that manages handover target cells using "addition, modification, or release" lists within a broadcast configuration. The method of transmitting a list via broadcast and subsequently updating internal target cell sets to UEs represents the routine application of established 5G NR mobility management procedures. Therefore, this is a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
As for claim 19
As for claim 1 9, limitation of parent claim 18 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects the variable is maintained by adding, modifying, or releasing the target cells based on the broadcast configuration for a HO operation as claimed in claim 5, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20
As for claim 20, limitation of parent claim 19 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects the transceiver is configured to transmit a HO command or a conditional handover (CHO) command to identify a target cell based on the variable as claimed in claim 6, and is rejected a long the same rationale.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-9758. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Fri 8-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeanette J. Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights