DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
2. 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 09/09/2026.
2. Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15 and 17 have been amended.
3. Claims 2, 8, 12 and 18 have been cancelled.
4. Claims 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 11, 13 – 17 and 19 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on 09/09/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 11, 13 – 17 and 19 – 20 have been fully considered. The independent claims were amended to incorporate subject matter from canceled claims 2, 8, 12 and 18, at the same time the original independent claims were further amended (replacing “or” by “and”) resulting in the scope of the claims being changed. A Further search and reconsideration were conducted as a result a new ground(s) of rejection is being made. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0147328 A1) in view of Nokia (R2-2308888, “Further details on TA Acquisition and Maintenance in LTM”, Incheon, South Korea, 22nd -26th of May 2023) and Palle Venkata et al. (US 2024/0340733 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses: A method by a base station in a wireless communication system (see figure 36 – 37, the base station is labelled 3690 AND 3790 respectively), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a L1/L2 triggered mobility (LTM) medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) [see ¶ 0563: “…The wireless device may receive a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating to switch the primary cell to a cell of the one or more candidate cells…” and “…The MAC CE indicating to switch the primary cell to the cell may comprise a MAC CE indicating the cell. The MAC CE may indicate a timing advance (TA) associated with the cell. The LTM may comprise a special cell (SpCell) switch procedure that the base station triggers, via the MAC CE, based on a layer 1 (L1) measurements…”. See also ¶ 0440 - ¶ 0441],
wherein the LTM MAC CE includes a target configuration identity (ID) for the LTM [ ¶ 0563: “…The MAC CE indicating to switch the primary cell to the cell may comprise a MAC CE indicating the cell. The MAC CE may indicate a timing advance (TA) associated with the cell. The LTM may comprise a special cell (SpCell) switch procedure that the base station triggers, via the MAC CE, based on a layer 1 (L1) measurements…”; See also ¶ 0440 - ¶ 0441: “… For example, the L1/L2 signaling may comprise an MAC CE that the wireless device receives…The L1/L2 signaling may comprise an indication indicating one of the one or more configurations for LTM that are configured and/or indicated by the one or more messages (e.g., RRC message and/or SIB) that the wireless device receives. For example, the indication indicating a first configuration of the one or more configurations for LTM. The indication may comprise an identifier of the first configuration. For example, the indication may be a configuration ID of the first configuration. The indication may comprise an identifier of a target cell respective to the first configuration. The wireless device may perform and/or execute, in response to receiving the L1/L2 signaling, the LTM (e.g., cell switch) to the target cell using configuration parameters of the first configuration. The configuration ID is interpreted in view of ¶ 0087 of this application submitted on 7/18/2024 as the candidate cell configuration ID of the target cell.], and a timing advance command indicating a TA value, [¶0563: “…The MAC CE may indicate a timing advance (TA) associated with the cell. The LTM may comprise a special cell (SpCell) switch procedure that the base station triggers, via the MAC CE, based on a layer 1 (L1) measurements…”. See also ¶ 0482,¶ 488]
Kim does not disclose:
receiving, from a gNB-DU (distributed unit), a message related to timing advance (TA) information;
wherein the timing advance command indicates whether the TA value is valid for a LTM target cell corresponding to the target configuration ID, and wherein, based on the timing advance command indicating a valid TA value, the UE skips a random access procedure for an LTM cell switch.
In the same field of endeavor Nokia discloses:
wherein the timing advance command indicates whether the TA value is valid for a LTM target cell corresponding to the target configuration ID,
and wherein, based on the timing advance command indicating a valid TA value, the UE skips a random access procedure for an LTM cell switch.
[see proposal 2 at the bottom of the 4th page in combination with the first paragraph under section 2.2.1 on the 6th page: The Cell switch command (known as the MACCE) will transmit the TA value to the UE for RACHless access for a target cell. [As seen in the primary reference the target cell possesses a target configuration ID.] Section 2..2.1 on the 6th page further states : “The acquired TA value is applied by the UE after receiving the LTM cell switch command from the Source gNB-DU. However, given that there is some time between the reception of the TA value by the Source gNB-DU and cell switch command being issue to the UE, it is useful that the UE or the network check if the acquired TA value can be still useful to be used for LTM execution.” In other words, the cell switch is RACHless, (RACHless means to skip the random-access procedure) in which the UE acquires a TA value from the serving gNB but has to check its validity in order to perform cell switching pertaining to the target cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s system in view of Nokia. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for the UE to trigger RACH-less cell switch in MAC layer [the first page of Nokia].
Kim in view of Nokia does not disclose: receiving, from a gNB-DU (distributed unit), a message related to timing advance (TA) information;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pella Venkata discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 101 in view of figure 10: “…Because the target LTM cell 1014 and the source LTM cell 1012 are LTM associated by being provided by the same gNB-DU 1010, the TA information (e.g., the TA value) can be sent in a random access response (RAR) 1030 by the gNB-DU via the source LTM cell 1012 instead of the target LTM cell 1014.”, see also ¶ 0100.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s system in view of Nokia and Pella Venkata. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to establish a second connection by use of the TA information for the second cell [¶ 0168 of Pella Venkata].
Claims 7, 11 and 17 recite similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1. Such elements as the controller and transceiver pertaining to both the base station and UE are seen in figure 15A in view of 15B (¶ 0205) of Kim.
Claim 4, Pella Venkata further discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the gNB-DU, a configuration request message for requesting random access channel (RACH) configuration; and receiving, from gNB-DU, a configuration response message. [Kim ¶ 0101: “… As part of establishing this connection, the UE 1004 can send a random access channel (RACH) message 1020 via the target LTM cell 1014….”, that is, the UE will send a request via the base station to the gNB-DU of figure 10 for TA acquisition which is interpreted as a configuration request . “…the TA information (e.g., the TA value) can be sent in a random access response (RAR) 1030 by the gNB-DU via the source LTM cell 1012 instead of the target LTM cell 1014.”. That is, the UE will receive a response (RAR) from the gNB-DU].
[In addition, see document R3-232824, provided via the applicant’s IDS, proposal 2 above section 2.2 on the second page]
Claim 14 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0147328 A1) in view of Nokia (R2-2308888, “Further details on TA Acquisition and Maintenance in LTM”, Incheon, South Korea, 22nd -26th of May 2023), Palle Venkata et al. (US 2024/0340733 A1) and Wang et al. (WO 2024/210047 A1, provided in the last office action).
Claim 5, Kim in view of Nokia and Palle Venkata discloses: The method of claim 1 (see rejected claim 1).
Kim in view of Nokia and Palle Venkata does not disclose: transmitting, to the UE, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order including an index for at least one LTM candidate cell; and receiving the valid TA value from the at least one LTM candidate cell.
However, In the same field of endeavor Wang discloses the above missing feature see ¶ 0210.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s system in view of Nokia, Pella Venkata and Wang. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to support RACH-less LTM [¶ 210 of Wang].
Claims 10, 15 and 20 recite similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0147328 A1) in view of Nokia (R2-2308888, “Further details on TA Acquisition and Maintenance in LTM”, Incheon, South Korea, 22nd -26th of May 2023), Palle Venkata et al. (US 2024/0340733 A1) and Gursu et al. (US 12, 439, 306).
Claim 6, Kim in view of Nokia and Palle Venkata discloses: The method of claim 1 (see rejected claim 1).
Kim in view of Nokia, Palle Venkata does not disclose: receiving, from the UE, an L1 measurement value; and determining whether to change a beam of the UE and whether to perform handover, based on the L1 measurement value.
However, In the same field of endeavor Gursu discloses the above missing feature see column 8, step 3 and step 10. Also see figure 2: the serving DU controlling cell 1 and cell 2 receives a L1 report at step 3. In step 10 a switch to beam A of cell 2 occurs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s system in view of Nokia, Pella Venkata and Gursu. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for beam level handover [see column 1 lines 19 – 20 of Gursu].
Claim 16 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0147328 A1) in view of Nokia (R2-2308888, “Further details on TA Acquisition and Maintenance in LTM”, Incheon, South Korea, 22nd -26th of May 2023), Palle Venkata et al. (US 2024/0340733 A1) and Huawei (R2-2306924, “38.321 running CR for introduction of NR further mobility enhancements”, provided by the applicant via the IDS).
Claim 3, Kim in view of Nokia and Pella Venkata discloses: The method of claim 1 (see rejected claim 1).
Kim in view of Nokia and Pella Venkata does not disclose: wherein a length of the timing advance command is 12 bits. However, in the reference of Huawei discloses the above missing feature, see section 6.3.1.4a on the 165th page.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s system in view of Nokia, Pella Venkata and Huawei. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for design incentive which is capable by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9, 13 and 19 recite similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
