DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 7 February 2024, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 22-28 are newly added.
Claims 7-9, 16-18, 20 and 21 are canceled.
Claims 1-6, 10-15, 19 and 22-28 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references (specifically references D1-D4) in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim language “a plurality of candidate/target DU” should read “a plurality of candidate/target DUs”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-15, 19 and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 19, the claims are found to be indefinite for the following reasons:
There are two recitations of “a candidate/target DU” in the “determine a status change…” clause. It is not clear whether these refer to the same candidate/target DU or different candidate/target DUs, as well as whether the second recitation relates to the earlier-recited “a plurality of candidate/target DU”.
Claim language “the status change information” lacks antecedent basis.
The claim language recites (emphasis added by the Office) “send a message comprising the status change information of all the candidate/target cells”. However, the claim earlier indicates that there are “one or more candidate/target cells.” Therefore, the phrase “all the candidate/target cells” is not commensurate in scope with the earlier recitation.
Claim language “the new serving DU” lacks antecedent basis.
The last clause recites (emphasis added by the Office) “receive a confirmation of reconfiguration corresponding to the status change at the new serving DU and the UE, wherein the UE applies one or more configuration changes provided by the CU prior to the change in the serving cell, as part of the reconfiguration.” However, this clause is unclear as to whether the “confirmation of reconfiguration” is received at the new serving DU and the UE, or if this message is indicating of a reconfiguration at the new serving DU and the UE. As the ”status change” is earlier claimed as being “of one or more cells of the serving DU and one or more candidate/target cells of a candidate/target DU”, it is not clear whether this last clause is referring to the same “status change.” Alternatively, if the “confirmation of reconfiguration” is claimed as being received at the new serving DU and the UE, the scope of the claim becomes unclear because the steps are performed by a CU, not a DU or UE.
Claims 2-6, 11-15 and 22-28 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims.
Further regarding Claims 5, 14 and 27, claim language “the serving cell change notification message” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 5 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wallentin et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2025/0374137), hereinafter Wallentin
Regarding Claim 1, Da Silva discloses a Centralized Unit (CU) (103) of a Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN node) (Figure 1, NG-RAN comprises gNBs with a gNB-CU) comprising:
a processor (Figure 16 – network node 1600 (gNB) comprises processing circuitry 1602; see also paragraph 0271); and
a memory, communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions, which, on execution, causes the processor (Figure 16 – network node 1600 (gNB) comprises memory storing instructions executed by the processing circuitry; see also paragraph 0272) to:
receive a notification indicating a change in serving cell due to L1/L2 triggered mobility (LTM) for a User Equipment (UE), from a serving Distributed Unit (DU) of the UE in the NG-RAN (Figure 11 at step 2005 – the serving CU receives an indication of a L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility serving cell procedure from the source (i.e., serving) DU; refer to paragraph 0207 at step 2005);
determine a status change of one or more cells of the serving DU and one or more candidate/target cells of a candidate/target DU amongst a plurality of candidate/target DU upon changing the serving cell for the UE to a new serving cell, wherein the new serving cell is one of the one or more candidate/target cells of a candidate/target DU (Figure 11 at step 2006 – the serving CU prepares an indication of L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility serving cell procedure, which indicates an identification of a target cell; refer to paragraph 0207 at step 2006);
send a message comprising the status change information of all the candidate/target cells including their corresponding cell identifiers to the new serving DU, wherein content of the message is further transmitted to the UE by the new serving DU (Figure 11 at step 2006 – the serving CU sends an indication of L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility serving cell procedure, which indicates an identification of a target cell; refer to paragraph 0207 at step 2006; paragraph 0209 – packets that were not previously delivered by the source DU are transmitted from CU to the target DU, which are then sent to the UE); and
receive a confirmation of reconfiguration corresponding to the status change at the new serving DU and the UE, wherein the UE applies one or more configuration changes provided by the CU prior to the change in the serving cell, as part of the reconfiguration (Figure 11 at step 2010 – the serving CU receives an L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility serving cell change success message; Figure 11 at steps 2004 and 2007 – the UE applies configuration changes to switch over to the target DU).
Claim 10 is a method comprising the same steps performed by the CU of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 1.
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions to cause a CU to perform the same steps as Claim 1. Noting that Wallentin discloses a memory (Figure 16 – network node 1600 (gNB) comprises memory storing instructions executed by the processing circuitry; see also paragraph 0272), the remaining limitations are rejected for the same reasons as presented above in claim 1.
Regarding Claims 5, 14 and 27, Wallentin discloses broadcast(ing) the serving cell change notification message to each of one or more candidate/target DUs detected by the CU based on a first measurement report received from the UE (Figure 11 at step 2006 – the CU sends an indication of L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility serving cell change procedure to the target DU); and receive a reconfiguration information corresponding to the status change for each of the candidate/target cells, from each of the one or more candidate/target DUs (Figure 11 at step 2010 – the CU receives an L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility serving cell change success).
Regarding Claims 6, 15 and 28, Wallentin discloses the notification received from the serving DU comprises an Identification Number of the new serving cell of the new serving DU among one or more candidate/target DUs determined for serving the UE (Figure 11 at step 2005 – the source DU sends an indication of L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility serving cell procedure comprising an identification of the target cell).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallentin in view of Zhang et al (WIPO Publication 2024/156123), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding Claims 2, 11 and 24, Wallentin discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10 and 19, as described above. However, Wallentin does not disclose wherein to determine the status change, the processor is configured to: determine a change in state of each of the one or more cells of the serving DU and each of the one or more candidate/target cells of the candidate/target DU from intra-DU to inter-DU or inter-DU to intra-DU, based on the change in the UE's serving cell. In an analogous art, Zhang discloses this. Specifically, Zhang discloses, at Figure 14 and pages 31-32 that the CU generates a reference configuration, including additional/candidate cell info list) based on configuration from candidate DUs, where the CU triggers a source configuration update and/or candidate configuration update based on the reference configuration (via a UE context modification procedure or UE context setup procedure). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wallentin and Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve network reliability for the UE as it moves.
Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 22, 23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallentin in view of Da Silva et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2025/0357983), hereinafter Da Silva.
Regarding Claims 3, 12 and 25, Wallentin discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10 and 19, as described above. However, Wallentin does not disclose wherein prior to receiving the notification, the processor is configured to: detect one or more candidate/target DUs among plurality of DUs based on a first measurement report received from the UE, wherein each of the one or more candidate/target DUs comprise the one or more candidate/target cells; transmit a setup request or modification request, requesting preparation of a LTM target cell configuration, to each of the one or more candidate/target DUs detected based on the first measurement report; and transmit the one or more configuration changes corresponding to the status change to be performed by the UE as part of the reconfiguration to the serving DU, upon receiving LTM candidate cell configurations from each of the one or more candidate/target DUs. In an analogous art, Da Silva discloses this. Specifically, Da Silva discloses prior to receiving the notification, the processor is configured to:
detect one or more candidate/target DUs among plurality of DUs based on a first measurement report received from the UE, wherein each of the one or more candidate/target DUs comprise the one or more candidate/target cells (Figure 8 and paragraph 0133 - the CU may determine one or more candidate cells and the associated DU, which is the neighbor DU in this case);
transmit a setup request or modification request, requesting preparation of a LTM target cell configuration, to each of the one or more candidate/target DUs detected based on the first measurement report (Figure 8 and paragraph 0133 - The CU transmits a request e.g., UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message over F1AP) for the neighbor DU to configure at least one L1/L2 inter-cell mobility candidate cell for the UE).; and
transmit the one or more configuration changes corresponding to the status change to be performed by the UE as part of the reconfiguration to the serving DU, upon receiving LTM candidate cell configurations from each of the one or more candidate/target DUs (Figure 8 and paragraph 0148 - The serving DU generates an updated version of the CSI measurement configuration (e.g., IE CSI-MeasConfig) and transmits it to the CU in a response message (e.g., UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE). The CU generates the RRCReconfiguration message including the updated CSI measurement configuration (e.g., in CellGroupConfig IE) and transmits it to the UE via the serving DU (e.g., DL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wallentin and Da Silva. One would have been motivated to do so in order to configure CSI-RS (or SSB) resources in L1/L2 mobility candidate cells provided by neighbor DUs, i.e., for inter-DU cell changes (refer to paragraph 0018 of Da Silva).
Regarding Claims 4, 13 and 26, the combination of Wallentin and Da Silva discloses the one or more configuration changes are provided to the UE using a Radio Resource Control (RRC) configuration message (Da Silva at Figure 8 and paragraph 0151 - the UE receives the RRCReconfiguration message the CSI resource configuration per L1/L2 inter-cell mobility candidate, including the configuration of RS to be measured and reported by the UE for CSI. Within various IE(s), fields, and/or parameters of the RRCReconfiguration message, the UE obtains a configuration of each L1/L2 inter-cell mobility candidate cell to be applied (or switched to) upon receiving lower layer signaling (e.g., MAC CE or DCI) indicating that the UE should switch to a L1/L2 inter-cell mobility candidate cell and/or a TCI state of a L1/L2 inter-cell mobility candidate cell). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Wallentin and Da Silva. One would have been motivated to do so in order to configure CSI-RS (or SSB) resources in L1/L2 mobility candidate cells provided by neighbor DUs, i.e., for inter-DU cell changes (refer to paragraph 0018 of Da Silva).
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Wallentin discloses the limitations of Claims 5 and 14, as described above. However, Wallentin does not disclose broadcast to each of one or more candidate/target DUs a context modification request message with an updated intra-DU and inter-DU change list. In an analogous art, Da Silva discloses this. Specifically, Da Silva discloses, at paragraph 0141, the CU transmits a message (e.g., UE Context Modification Request) to the UE's serving DU and receives a response (e.g., UE Context Modification Response) including a CSI reporting configuration for one of the UE's configured serving cells (e.g., PCell or SCell), e.g., for reporting CSI over the UL channel of that serving cell. The CSI reporting configuration is associated with a resource configuration of a L1/L2 inter-cell mobility target candidate, so that the UE measures configured resources of the L1/L2 inter-cell mobility candidate (e.g., an SSB-x of candidate cell A) and reports CSI over the UL channel of the serving cell. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wallentin and Da Silva. One would have been motivated to do so in order to configure CSI-RS (or SSB) resources in L1/L2 mobility candidate cells provided by neighbor DUs, i.e., for inter-DU cell changes (refer to paragraph 0018 of Da Silva).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Da Silva et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20250351040) is directed to configuring inter-DU L1/L2 mobility candidates.
Gundogan et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20250203467) is directed to reporting measurements in L1/L2 mobility.
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #119bis-e (“LS on RAN2 agreements about L1/L2-triggered mobility (LTM)” R2-2211000) is directed to agreements and assumptions on terminology for L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472