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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 2022-01-18. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202210054782.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to as expressions CPC and CPA are not defined in the claim
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 8, 19 and 20 recite expression “proper subset” which lacks clarity. It is not clear from the claims the meaning of “proper subset” and the distinguishment from improper subset.
Claim 20 recites for a second node “transmitting a first signaling” in line 1 of the first limitation. However, line 7 of the second limitation recites “after receiving the first signaling”, which appears to recite function of the first node of claim 1.
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 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)(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.
(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 1-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HU; Xingxing US 20240365202 A1 priority 2022-01-07 (HU [0001] “claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202210018455.0, filed on Jan. 7, 2022. The disclosures of the aforementioned applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.”), hereinafter HU.
Regarding claim 1, 19 and 20 , HU teaches, A first node for wireless communications (see HU Fig. 12), comprising: a first receiver, receiving a first signaling, the first signaling being used to indicate a first condition set, the first condition set including multiple triggering conditions (HU [0005] “A terminal device receives a conditional handover CHO configuration from a network device to which a serving cell belongs, where the CHO configuration includes trigger conditions respectively corresponding to M candidate cells, …”, teaches receiving a CHO configuration (see Fog. 9 S901) signal with multiple trigger conditions); and
a first processor, as a response to a first triggering condition being satisfied, disconnecting from a first serving cell and applying a first candidate configuration, the first candidate configuration including configuration information for a second serving cell, the first serving cell and the second serving cell each being a SpCell (HU [0126] “Step S903: When a trigger condition corresponding to a first candidate cell in the M candidate cells is met, the terminal device is handed over from the serving cell to the first candidate cell.”, [127] “when the trigger condition corresponding to the first candidate cell is met, the terminal device uses the configuration information corresponding to the first candidate cell.”, [194] “The MN provides a primary cell (PCell) for the terminal device, the SN provides a primary secondary cell (PSCell), and the MN exchanges control plane signaling with a core network… The foregoing CHO configuration may be extended to an SN change in the MR-DC. To be specific, the CHO configuration is used to change an SN of the terminal device, or is used to change a PSCell of a same SN”, teaches PSCell (i.e., SPCell) handover. First and second serving cells are interpreted as Serving/source cell and candidate/target cell in a handover scenario);
wherein the first triggering condition being satisfied occurs after receiving the first signaling, the first triggering condition is a triggering condition in a first condition subset, and the first condition subset is a proper subset of the first condition set; the first condition subset is related to the first serving cell (taught or implied in the rejections above. “condition subset” is interpreted as individual conditions for a candidate cell. “proper subset” is interpreted as the configured trigger condition of a candidate cell.).
With respect to claim 19, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding method. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 20, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding transmitting side. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claim 2, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in that the first condition set includes Q1 condition subsets, and the first serving cell is one of Q1 cells, the Q1 condition subsets being respectively associated with the Q1 cells, the Q1 being a positive integer greater than 1 (See HU [0005] for M (i.e., Q1) cells and M conditions, M>1. Limitation “the first serving cell is one of Q1 cell” is understood as serving cell having a triggering condition. HU [0023] “In another possible implementation, the CHO configuration further includes a trigger condition corresponding to handover from the first candidate cell to the serving cell, or a trigger condition corresponding to handover from the second candidate cell to the serving cell”, implies serving cell’s triggering condition is included in the configuration).
Regarding claim 3, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in that the first triggering condition comprises that at least a measurement result for the second serving cell is greater than a first threshold; the first signaling comprises the first threshold; the first threshold is configured by a maintenance base station of the first serving cell, or, the first threshold is configured by a maintenance base station of the second serving cell (HU [0129] “Optionally, the trigger condition corresponding to the first candidate cell may further include a signal quality trigger condition corresponding to the first candidate cell. Optionally, the signal quality trigger condition may refer to that signal quality of the first candidate cell is greater than a third threshold, and the third threshold may be predefined in a protocol or determined by the network device. Correspondingly, that the trigger condition corresponding to the first candidate cell is met may also refer to that the signal quality trigger condition corresponding to the first candidate cell in the M candidate cells is met.”).
Regarding claim 4, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in comprising: the first processor, as a response to a second triggering condition being satisfied, disconnecting from a third serving cell and applying a second candidate configuration, the second candidate configuration including configuration information for the first serving cell, the third serving cell being a SpCell; wherein the action of receiving the first signaling occurs before the second triggering condition being satisfied (Limitation is about handover over to a different cell than the second cell. HU inherently teaches the limitation, see also HU [22]).
Regarding claim 5, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 4.
HU further teaches, characterized in comprising: the first receiver, receiving a second signaling, the second signaling being used to indicate the first condition set; wherein the action of receiving the second signaling occurs after the second triggering condition being satisfied (The limitation is interpreted as having further triggering conditions such as over a second signaling. HU [123],[124] “Optionally, after receiving the CHO configuration corresponding to each candidate cell, the terminal device first performs the following processing for each candidate cell: obtaining final configuration information of the candidate cell based on configuration information of the serving cell at the current moment and configuration information corresponding to the candidate cell in the CHO configuration of the candidate cell (for example, the configuration information corresponding to the candidate cell in the CHO configuration includes only a difference between the configuration information of the candidate cell and the configuration information of the current serving cell)”, teaches receiving further conditions from new serving cells).
Regarding claim 6, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 4.
HU further teaches, characterized in that the second triggering condition comprises that at least a measurement result for the first serving cell is greater than a second threshold; the first signaling comprises the second threshold; the second threshold is configured by a maintenance base station of the third serving cell, or, the second threshold is configured by a maintenance base station of the first serving cell (see rejection of claim 3 above, which is applicable to and implied for the further triggering conditions).
Regarding claim 8, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in comprising: the first receiver, evaluating a second condition subset after successful application of the first candidate configuration; wherein the second condition subset is a proper subset of the first condition set; the second condition subset is related to the second serving cell (Implicitly taught by HU. See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 8.
HU further teaches, characterized in that the first signaling comprises the first information block; the first information block comprises at least one of a first identifier, the first candidate configuration or the second condition subset; the first identifier indicates the second serving cell; the first identifier is a non-negative integer (Inherently taught by HU. See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in that before completing the application of the first candidate configuration, no triggering condition in any condition subset associated with the second serving cell in the first condition set is to be evaluated (Implicitly taught by HU).
Regarding claim 12, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in that after completing the application of the first candidate configuration, the configuration of the first serving cell is not deleted (see HU [124] implying, configuration is not deleted).
Regarding claim 13, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in that after completing the application of the first candidate configuration, a triggering condition in a condition subset associated with the second serving cell in the first condition set is to be evaluated (see HU [124] implying configuration is evaluated).
Regarding claim 15, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in that the first condition set is for a PSCell, the SpCell being the PSCell; the first signaling is used to configure CPC or CPA (HU [194] “the CHO configuration is used to change an SN of the terminal device, or is used to change a PSCell of a same SN (i.e., CPC (Conditional PSCell Change)).
Regarding claim 16, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in that the first signaling being used to indicate a first condition set includes: the first signaling indicating all conditions in the first condition set (Inherently taught by HU. See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in that the first signaling is a RRCReconfiguration message; the first signaling indicates measurement identifiers respectively associated with each triggering condition among the multiple triggering conditions in the first condition set; and the first signaling indicates triggering events respectively associated with each triggering condition among the multiple triggering conditions in the first condition set (HU [0100] “Step 1: A source base station sends a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message to a terminal device, where the RRC reconfiguration message includes parameters such as a measurement object, a report configuration, and a measurement identifier.”, [0101] “Step 2: After measuring a series of cells based on the RRC reconfiguration message, the terminal device forms a measurement report, and reports various events to the currently connected source base station.”, [0159] “Optionally, the identification information of the M candidate cells and/or the one or more trigger conditions respectively corresponding to the M candidate cells may be included in a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) message, …”).
Regarding claim 18, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU further teaches, characterized in that the first condition subset is associated with a first candidate cell set, and the second serving cell is one candidate cell in the first candidate cell set; the first condition subset includes at least one triggering condition, and each triggering condition in the first condition subset corresponds to one candidate cell in the first candidate cell set (Inherently taught by HU. See also rejection of claim 1).
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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of CHANDRASHEKAR; Subramanya et al US 20240214879 A1, hereinafter CHANDRASHEKAR.
Regarding claim 7, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, CHANDRASHEKAR teaches, characterized in that a cell group identity of a cell group to which the first serving cell belongs is configured as a first integer, and a cell group identity of a cell group to which the second serving cell belongs is configured as the first integer (The limitation is interpreted as both the service cell and candidate cell, which are source and target cells respectively, have an equal identity. CHANDRASHEKAR [41], [42] “… improved techniques of intra and inter gNB-DU mobility include determining, by a UE served by a source cell, whether a target cell belongs to the same gNB-DU as the source cell based on information sent by the gNB-CU-CP after a connection with the gNB has been established. The information sent by the gNB includes, for each cell, a group identifier identifying the gNB-DU with which that cell is associated. When measurement data provided by the UE indicates readiness for a serving cell change to a target cell, the UE uses the group identifier to determine whether the target cell belongs to the same gNB-DU as the source cell (intra-DU mobility scenario) ..”), teaches both source (=first serving cell) service cell and target cell (=second serving cell) having the same gNB-DU identified by a group identifier).
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 invention of HU to include the features as taught by CHANDRASHEKAR above to provide better handovers in 5g that alleviates Physical Cell Identity Collision (CHANDRASHEKAR Title).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim; Sangwon et al US 20220377631 A1, hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 10, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches, characterized in that the first triggering condition includes an event A3, or the first triggering condition includes an event A4, or, the first triggering condition includes an event A5 (Kim [0052] “ ‘Mobility condition for a target cell’ refers to a triggering condition for a mobility to the target cell. That is, the mobility condition for a target cell refers to a condition that should be satisfied for triggering a mobility to the target cell. Mobility condition may comprise at least one of event A3 condition (i.e., mobility condition for event A3) or event A5 condition (i.e., mobility condition for event A5).”).
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 invention of HU to include the features as taught by Kim above to provide enhanced method for mobility execution if a plurality of measurement quantities are configured in a wireless communication system (Kim [0007]).
Regarding claim 14, HU teaches the first node, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
HU does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches, characterized in that the first condition set is for a PCell, the SpCell being the PCell; the first signaling is used to configure a candidate PCell (Kim [0050] “ ‘Mobility’ refers to a procedure for i) changing a PCell of a UE (i.e., handover or PCell change, …”, [0053] “ ‘SN mobility condition for a target cell’ refers to a triggering condition for an SN mobility (i.e., SN addition or SN change) to the target cell. That is, the SN mobility condition for a target cell refers to a condition that should be satisfied for triggering an SN mobility to the target cell.”).
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 invention of HU to include the features as taught by Kim above to provide enhanced method for mobility execution if a plurality of measurement quantities are configured in a wireless communication system (Kim [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LEE; Youngdae, US 20200229054 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOBILITY MANAGEMENT IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM; reads on claim 1.
KIM; Hongsuk, US 20210112475 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOBILITY HANDLING IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM; reads on claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
