DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US 2024/0306059).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhang teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive a signal indicating respective execution conditions for a conditional handover procedure for each of one or more candidate handover groups, the one or more candidate handover groups comprising a candidate cell group and a candidate relay group, and each candidate handover group associated with a different priority level ([0008], [0012], [0034]-[0035], [0040]-[0046], [0049], [0070], [0081]-[0082]); select a handover candidate for performing the conditional handover procedure based at least in part on determining that the respective execution condition is satisfied for one or more handover candidates of the one or more candidate handover groups and on the respective priority levels of the one or more candidate handover groups; and perform the conditional handover procedure to the selected handover candidate ([0008], [0012], [0034]-[0035], [0040]-[0046], [0049], [0070], [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding independent claim 17, the claim recites similar subject matter as in claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 14 and 19, the claims correspond to base station with reverse transmitting/receiving (mutatis mutandis) and recites similar subject matter as in claims 1 and 19, respectively. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claims 1 and 19, respectively.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Zhang further teaches identifying, based at least in part on the indication, a first execution condition of the respective execution conditions for the candidate cell group and a second execution condition of the respective execution conditions for the candidate relay group, wherein the first execution condition is associated with a first measurement event and the second execution condition is associated with a second, different measurement event. See ([0008], [0012], [0034]-[0035], [0040]-[0046], [0049], [0070], [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Zhang further teaches identifying, based at least in part on the indication, a first priority level for the candidate cell group and a second priority level for the candidate relay group. See [0072], [0077], [0081] and [0220].
Regarding dependent claim 5, Zhang further teaches to identify, based at least in part on monitoring a signal from one or more handover candidates in the one or more candidate handover groups, a receive power level for each of the one or more handover candidates; and determine that the respective execution condition is satisfied based at least in part on the receive power level of the one or more handover candidates satisfying a threshold. See [0053].
Regarding dependent claim 6, Zhang further teaches to determine, based at least in part on monitoring for a sidelink discovery reference signal, that the receive power level for one or more relays of the candidate relay group satisfy the threshold, wherein the conditional handover is performed based at least in part on the receive power level for the one or more relays satisfying the threshold. See [0053].
Regarding dependent claim 7, Zhang further teaches to determine that the receive power level for a serving cell fails to satisfy a serving cell threshold, wherein the conditional handover is performed based at least in part on the receive power level for the one or more relays satisfying the threshold and the receive power for the serving cell failing to satisfy the serving cell threshold. See [0094], [0114] and [0115].
Regarding dependent claim 8, Zhang further teaches to determine, based at least in part on monitoring for a sidelink discovery reference signal, that the receive power level for a serving relay fails to satisfy a serving relay threshold, wherein the conditional handover is performed based at least in part on the receive power level for the serving relay failing to satisfying the serving relay threshold. See [0053].
Regarding dependent claim 9, Zhang further teaches determine, based at least in part on monitoring for a reference signal, that the receive power level for one or more handover candidates satisfy a threshold, wherein the conditional handover is performed based at least in part on the receive power level for the serving relay failing to satisfy the serving relay threshold and the receive power for the one or more handover candidates satisfying the threshold. See [0053].
Regarding dependent claim 10, Zhang further teaches to determine, based at least in part on monitoring for a sidelink reference signal, that the receive power level for a serving relay fails to satisfy a serving relay threshold; and determine, based at least in part on monitoring for a sidelink discovery reference signal, that the receive power level for a candidate relay of the candidate relay group satisfies a threshold, wherein the conditional handover is performed based at least in part on the receive power level for the serving relay failing to satisfy the serving relay threshold and the receive power level for the candidate relay satisfying the threshold. See [0053].
Regarding dependent claim 11, Zhang further teaches to refrain, based at least in part on the respective execution condition being satisfied, from performing transmissions to a source cell via a serving relay; and transmit, to a target cell associated with a selected candidate relay, a handover complete message based at least in part on the conditional handover procedure being performed. See [0123], [0139] and [0184].
Regarding dependent claim 12, Zhang further teaches wherein: the handover complete message is transmitted to the target cell via the selected candidate relay while the selected candidate relay is operating in a connected mode, and the handover complete message is transmitted over a dedicated sidelink bearer from the source cell. See [0053], [0123], [0139] and [0184].
Regarding dependent claim 13, Zhang further teaches wherein: the handover complete message is transmitted to the selected candidate relay for relaying to the target cell while the selected candidate relay is operating in an idle mode or an inactive mode, and the handover complete message is transmitted over a fixed sidelink bearer. See [0053], [0123], [0139] and [0184].
Regarding dependent claim 18, Zhang further teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: relay, base at least in part on the conditional handover of the second UE, data between the second UE and the serving base station of the first UE. See [0034]-[0035].
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 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.
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 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 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2024/0306059) in view of Baek et al (US 2021/0315057) or Wang et al (US 12,294,897).
Regarding dependent claims 15 and 16, Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach forwarding the identifier of the UE and serving cell to the base station. However, forwarding identifiers of the UE and serving cell or base stations is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications when performing handover. For example, Baek or Wang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches forwarding identifiers of relating UE, relay, serving cell and/or base station in performing hand over. See Baek: [0121], [0223] and [0227] or Wang: col. 5, lines 47-55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang by employing the teachings as taught by Baek or Wang so as to identify the relating UE, relay, serving cell and/or base station.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2024/0306059) in view of Baek et al (US 2021/0315057).
Regarding dependent claims 20-22, Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach to determine the target relay is operating in a connected mode (claims 20 and 21) or in inactive or idle mode (claim 22) and transmitting the message accordingly. However, such transmitting messages based on the connected or idle mode is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications when performing handover. For example, Baek, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such transmission See Baek: [0109], [0110] (for connected mode) and [0251] (for inactive or idle mode). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhang by employing the teachings as taught by Baek in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Aminaka (US 9,107,115), Sung et al (US 10,512,037), Xu et al (US 2019/0313315) and Tao (US 2024/0357446) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus for conditional handover between UEs and base stations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) 272-3018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634