DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 13-32 are presented for examination.
Claim(s) 1-12 are canceled.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 18, 20, 23-26 and 28-31 are amended.
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
As required by M.P.E.P.201.14(c), acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority based on application(s) 62/474,948 submitted on March 22nd, 2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on July 5th, 2024 and June 30th, 2025 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s amendment to the specification of the disclosure filed January 22nd, 2025 is considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim(s) 13-17, 19-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2017/0048898 A1) hereinafter “Jung” in view of Tenny et al. (US 2010/0124203 A1) hereinafter “Tenny”.
Regarding Claims 13 and 23,
Jung discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) [see fig(s). 13 & 16, pg. 12, ¶239 lines 1-8, a user equipment (UE) “1100”] comprising:
a processor [see fig(s). 13 & 16, pg. 12, ¶239 lines 1-8, a processor “1110”]; and
a transceiver [see fig(s). 13 & 16, pg. 12, ¶239 lines 1-8; ¶240 lines 1-2, a RF unit “1130” coupled to the processor “1110” transmitting and receiving a radio signal];
the processor and the transceiver configured to [see fig(s). 13 & 16, pg. 12, ¶239 lines 1-8; ¶240 lines 1-2, the RF unit “1130” and the processor “1110” implemented to]:
transmit or receive over a first radio link associated with a serving cell [see fig. 13: Step “401”, pg. 11, ¶212 lines 1-2, the UE transmits a measurement report to cell #1];
receive a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message [see fig. 13: Step “403”, pg. 11, ¶214 lines 1-3, when the handover is prepared, cell #1 transmits an RRC connection reconfiguration for the handover to the UE];
detect a failure of the first radio link associated with the serving cell [see fig. 13, pg. 11, ¶215 lines 1-4, the UE detects a physical layer problem in the radio link with cell #1];
select a target cell in response to detecting a failure of the first radio link associated with the serving cell [see fig. 13: Step(s) “408”/ “409”, pg. 11, ¶218 lines 1-9, after declaring radio link failure (RLF), the UE starts an RRC connection re-establishment procedure with cell #2]; and
transmit a message to establish a second radio link associated with the selected target cell [see fig. 13: Step(s) “408”/ “409”, pg. 11, ¶218 lines 1-9, the UE makes an early RLF declaration, and the RRC connection re-establishment procedure is started].
Although Jung discloses receiving a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message, Jung does not explicitly teach the RRC message “including an information element that indicates one or more conditional handover (CHO) reconfigurations associated with one or more candidate cells”; “determining to apply one of the one or more CHO reconfigurations based on a determination that the selected target cell is one of the one or more candidate cells associated with one of the one or more CHO reconfigurations”; and transmitting a message “based on the one of the one or more CHO reconfigurations”.
However Tenny discloses transmitting or receiving over a first radio link associated with a serving cell [see fig. 4: Step “402”, pg. 6, ¶56 lines 1-9, measurement reporting thresholds are configured such that an access terminal sends a measurement report when signals from a target access point are weaker than signals from the serving access point];
receiving a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message including an information element that indicates one or more conditional handover (CHO) reconfigurations associated with one or more candidate cells [see fig. 4: Step “406”, pg. 6, ¶58 lines 1-17; ¶59 lines 1-3, the serving access point then sends a message (e.g., an advance handover command) to the access terminal in the form of an RRC reconfiguration message];
detecting a failure of the first radio link associated with the serving cell [see pg. 6, ¶64 lines 8-10, determining whether to declare radio link failure (RLF)];
selecting a target cell in response to detecting a failure of the first radio link associated with the serving cell [see pg. 6, ¶65 lines 1-9, determining whether a measured quantity associated with a signal that an access terminal receives from an access point (e.g., a potential target) meets a specified criterion];
determining to apply one of the one or more CHO reconfigurations based on a determination that the selected target cell is one of the one or more candidate cells associated with one of the one or more CHO reconfigurations [see fig. 4: Step “412”, pg. 6, ¶56 lines 1-9, the access terminal initiates the handover if the condition is met (e.g., handover is imminent). Here, the access terminal autonomously applies the stored configuration for the target access point and connects to the target access point (e.g., via random access)]; and
transmitting a message to establish a second radio link associated with the selected target cell based on the one of the one or more CHO reconfigurations [see fig. 4: Step “414”, pg. 7, ¶74 lines 1-9, the access terminal sends a notification message to the serving access point that includes the identity of the target access point to which the access terminal is connecting].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the RRC message “including an information element that indicates one or more conditional handover (CHO) reconfigurations associated with one or more candidate cells”; “determining to apply one of the one or more CHO reconfigurations based on a determination that the selected target cell is one of the one or more candidate cells associated with one of the one or more CHO reconfigurations”; and transmitting a message “based on the one of the one or more CHO reconfigurations” as taught by Tenny in the system of Jung for improving access terminal mobility [see Tenny, pg. 1, ¶4 lines 1-3].
Regarding Claims 14 and 24,
Jung discloses the WTRU of claim 23.
Jung does not explicitly teach “the information element that indicates the one or more CHO reconfigurations further indicates one or more respective trigger conditions”.
However Tenny discloses the information element that indicates the one or more CHO reconfigurations further indicates one or more respective trigger conditions [see fig. 4: Step “406”, pg. 6, ¶58 lines 1-17; ¶59 lines 1-3, in addition to identifying one or more prepared access points, the message includes an indication to delay a handover operation until a condition is met].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the information element that indicates the one or more CHO reconfigurations further indicates one or more respective trigger conditions” as taught by Tenny in the system of Jung for the same motivation as set forth in claim 23.
Regarding Claims 15 and 25,
The combined system of Jung and Tenny discloses the WTRU of claim 24.
Jung further discloses wherein the processor and the transceiver further configured to:
detect the failure of the first radio link associated with the serving cell by monitoring the one or more respective trigger conditions and determining that at least one of the one or more respective trigger conditions has been met conditions [see pg. 11, ¶216 lines 1-2; ¶217 lines 1-3, when the physical layer problem is detected, the UE starts T310; the UE detects that a specific event with respect to cell #2 occurs while “T310” is operating. For example, the occurrence of event A3 or A5 is detected].
Regarding Claims 16 and 26,
The combined system of Jung and Tenny discloses the WTRU of claim 23.
Jung further discloses wherein the processor and the transceiver further configured to:
receive information indicating a measurement configuration associated with the one or more candidate cells [see pg. 11, ¶213 lines 1-3; ¶214 lines 1-3, when the measurement report is received, cell #1 prepares a handover to cell #2 based on the measurement report; when the handover is prepared, cell #1 transmits an RRC connection reconfiguration for the handover to the UE].
Regarding Claims 17 and 27,
Jung discloses the WTRU of claim 26.
Jung does not explicitly teach “the measurement configuration includes parameters for measuring beams associated with the one or more candidate cells”.
However Tenny discloses the measurement configuration includes parameters for measuring beams associated with the one or more candidate cells [see pg. 8, ¶92 lines 1-8, determining which pre-coding matrix to use for determining beam-forming weights then processes the extracted message].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the measurement configuration includes parameters for measuring beams associated with the one or more candidate cells” as taught by Tenny in the system of Jung for the same motivation as set forth in claim 23.
Regarding Claims 19 and 29,
The combined system of Jung and Tenny discloses the WTRU of claim 23.
Jung further discloses wherein the processor and the transceiver further configured to:
transmit an RRC connection reconfiguration complete message [see pg. 5, ¶86 lines 1-3, the UE sends an RRC connection establishment complete message used to check the successful completion of the RRC connection to the network].
Regarding Claims 20 and 30,
The combined system of Jung and Tenny discloses the WTRU of claim 24.
Jung further discloses wherein the message to establish the second radio link associated with the selected target cell is transmitted prior to expiration of a timer associated with monitoring of the one or more respective trigger conditions [see pg. 11, ¶218 lines 1-9, when T312 is set for a measurement object/measurement ID relating to cell #2, the UE starts T312. When T312 expires, the UE declares an RLF even before the expiry of T310. After declaring the RLF, the UE starts an RRC connection re-establishment procedure with cell #2].
Regarding Claims 21 and 31,
The combined system of Jung and Tenny discloses the WTRU of claim 23.
Jung further discloses wherein the processor and the transceiver further configured to:
transmit a measurement report including at least one measurement associated with the selected target cell prior to receiving the RRC reconfiguration message [see pg. 11, ¶212 lines 1-9; ¶213 lines 1-3, the UE transmits a measurement report to cell #1 for it to prepare a handover to cell #2 based on the measurement report].
Regarding Claims 22 and 32,
Jung discloses the WTRU of claim 27.
Jung does not explicitly teach “the message transmitted to establish the second radio link associated with the selected target cell is a random access message, wherein the random access message is transmitted using a beam associated with the target cell”.
However Tenny discloses the message transmitted to establish the second radio link associated with the selected target cell is a random access message [see pg. 6, ¶62 lines 1-8, if handover is not to be delayed (e.g., flag=FALSE), the access terminal immediately connects to the target access point (e.g., via random access)], wherein the random access message is transmitted using a beam associated with the target cell [see pg. 6, ¶63 lines 1-7, the access terminal continues to monitor RF conditions (e.g., pilot signals) associated with the target access points and/or the serving access point to determine when to initiate handover].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the message transmitted to establish the second radio link associated with the selected target cell is a random access message, wherein the random access message is transmitted using a beam associated with the target cell” as taught by Tenny in the system of Jung for the same motivation as set forth in claim 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 28 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication: Cui et al. (US 2015/0092686 A1);
see fig. 1, pgs. 1-4, ¶7-¶41.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSHIL P SAMPAT whose telephone number is (469) 295-9141. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8 AM - 5 PM).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUSHIL P. SAMPAT/Primary Examiner- TC 2400, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights