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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment and remarks filed May 20, 2026. Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-18, and 20 were amended; claim 6 was cancelled; claims 7, 8, 12, and 19 remain as previously presented. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending and have been examined
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. The ground of rejection is restated over Kanneath (WO 2024/219764 A1) in view of Veeramallu (US 2019/0028905 A1) to reflect the amended claim scope. No claim is allowed. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, pp. 7-9) filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 15 to recite, among other features, not storing RA information associated with the first (early-TA) RA procedure in an RA report, and storing the RA information of the second (LTM cell-switch) RA procedure under a first purpose indicating that the second RA procedure is associated with the LTM Cell switch, and asserts that the cited references fail to teach or suggest these combined features. The argument is not persuasive.
Firstly, Kanneath's disclosure that the early-TA random access is logged in the RA-Report does not teach away from the claimed omission: a reference's disclosure of an alternative does not teach away absent criticism, discrediting, or discouragement of the claimed approach and Kanneath nowhere requires that every LTM-related access be logged (See MPEP 2141.02(VI): “. . . the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also MPEP § 2123.)
Secondly, as to the omission itself, not storing the RA information of the preparatory early-TA access reflects the recognized operation of the prior-art RA-report framework rather than a departure from it. TS 38.331 conditions the recording of an RA-Report entry on the successful completion of the random access procedure (TS 38.331, clause 5.7.10.4), and Kanneath teaches that the early-TA random access is considered not succeeded when the UE has not received an RAR or a timing-advance MAC CE (Kanneath, para [87]); a UE operating that framework accordingly records no RA-Report entry for the preparatory early-TA access. Such an omission is additionally a matter of obvious engineering choice where the self-optimization function of the report entry is not desired (MPEP 2144.04(II)(A)), particularly where Veeramallu places the scope of UE reporting under the network's request-driven control (Veeramallu, para [0059] “The procedure itself starts with the UE reporting its support (not shown). The network can then request from the UE to report information (e.g., about a RACH procedure, connection establishment failure, etc.) through a UE information request 402.”)
Thirdly, as to the first purpose, Kanneath itself instructs that the UE may set the ra-purpose to “any other value which communicates that the random access is performed for LTM” (Kanneath, para [149]); applying that express value-minting technique to the RACH-based LTM cell switch that Kanneath already discloses (Kanneath, para [79]) is the use of a known technique to improve a similar procedure in the same way (MPEP 2143(I)(D)). Accordingly, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive in view of the rejection set forth below, which presents a new ground of rejection adding Veeramallu and TS 38.331 to address the amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanneath (WO 2024/219764 A1) in view of Veeramallu (US 2019/0028905 A1), further in view of 3GPP TS 38.331 v17.4.0 (ETSI TS 138 331 V17.4.0 (2023-05)
Regarding claim 1, Kanneath discloses: (Currently Amended) A method of a User Equipment (UE), comprising: being configured with a Layer 1 (L1)/Layer 2 (L2)-Triggered Mobility (LTM) configuration including a first candidate cell and a second candidate cell, because Kanneath teaches a UE configured to perform random access toward LTM candidate cells for early TA acquisition, the configuration and the PDCCH order addressing one or more (a first and a second) candidate cells: (Kanneath, para [195] “receive a configuration to perform random access towards the at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early timing advance (TA);”; Kanneath, Fig. 5 (S502) “Receive a PDCCH order for performing RACH for early TA on one or more candidate cells”)
Furthermore, Kanneath discloses: receiving a first Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) order, because Kanneath teaches the UE receiving a PDCCH order from the serving cell to perform the random access toward the candidate cell: (Kanneath, para [195] “receive a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) order from a serving cell to perform the random access towards the at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early timing advance;”)
Moreover, Kanneath discloses: initiating, in response to receiving the first PDCCH order, a first Random Access (RA) procedure to the first candidate cell for early Timing Advance (TA) acquisition, because Kanneath teaches performing, in response to the PDCCH order, the random access toward an LTM candidate cell for early TA, before any cell switch: (Kanneath, para [202] “the random access associated with the early TA acquisition is performed before receiving a cell switch command”; Kanneath, Fig. 5 (S504) “Perform RACH for early TA on one or more candidate cells”)
In addition, Kanneath discloses: initiating a second RA procedure to the second candidate cell to execute an LTM Cell switch to the second candidate cell, because Kanneath teaches the gNB instructing the UE to move to a target candidate cell through a MAC CE cell-switch command, the cell switch being RACH-based: (Kanneath, para [79] “MAC CE triggering of the cell switch carries LTM related information for cell switch including the cell identifier”; Kanneath, para [79] “Both RACH-based (CFRA, CBRA) and RACH-less procedures for cell switch is supported”)
Furthermore, Kanneath discloses: storing a first RA information associated with the second RA procedure in the RA report, wherein the UE sets a purpose of the second RA procedure in the first RA information to a first purpose indicating that the second RA procedure is associated with the LTM Cell switch, because Kanneath teaches storing the RA purpose and related information of an LTM random access in the RA-Report, the ra-purpose being settable to a value which communicates that the random access is performed for LTM: (Kanneath, para [175] “storing the RA purpose and other information for optimisation of RA for early TA in RA-Report”; Kanneath, para [149] “The NR UE sets the ra-purpose-r16 to earlyTA (or any other value which communicates that the random access is performed for LTM due to earlyTA) for this case.”)
Moreover, Kanneath discloses: reporting the first RA information to a network in response to a first request from the network, because Kanneath teaches the UE reporting the logged RA information upon receiving a UE Information Request carrying a report request set to true: (Kanneath, para [179] “receives the UE Information Request with at least one of connectfailreportreq, RA-reportreq, RLF-reportreq or any similar report request set to true from the network entity”)
Although Kanneath teaches logging the LTM early-TA random access in the RA-Report under its scenario-specific raPurpose field and reporting the logged information upon the network's request: (Kanneath, para [175], para [152], para [179]), Kanneath does not explicitly disclose not storing RA information associated with the first RA procedure in an RA report.
However, Kanneath in view of Veeramallu and TS 38.331 discloses not storing RA information associated with the first RA procedure in an RA report. TS 38.331 makes the storing of an RA-Report entry explicitly contingent on the successful completion of the random access procedure: the storing action is triggered only “Upon successfully performing random-access procedure initialized with 4-step or 2-step RA type”, whereupon the UE shall “append the following contents associated to the successfully completed random-access procedure” as a new entry in the VarRA-Report (TS 38.331, clause 5.7.10.4); the stored list itself is defined as holding RA reports “for the past upto maxRAReport-r16 number of successful random access procedures” (see TS 38.331, ra-ReportList field description in pp 445) and TS 38.331 expressly contemplates not logging RA information at all based on an access's triggering event (TS 38.331, clause 5.7.10.4, NOTE 1, “The UE does not log the RA information in the RA report if the triggering event of the random access is consistent UL LBT on SpCell”). Because the random access procedure for early TA acquisition concludes without RAR reception, the UE cannot determine that it has been successfully performed; the storing step of clause 5.7.10.4 is therefore never reached for such an access, and its RA information would not be stored/recorded in the RA report.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kanneath, Veeramallu, and TS 38.331 such that the LTM UE logs the RACH-based cell-switch random access under an ra-purpose value communicating its LTM cell-switch scenario, the application of Kanneath's own technique of minting scenario-communicating purpose values to the cell-switch access Kanneath already discloses (MPEP 2143(I)(D)), while not storing an RA-Report entry for the preparatory early-TA access, the continued application of the known success-conditioned recording rule of TS 38.331, consistent with its express practice of not logging RA information for designated triggering events, to Kanneath's early-TA procedure (MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (D)), yielding the predictable result of supplying the network the requested mobility-optimization data at reduced report overhead.
Regarding claim 2, Kanneath discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: initiating a third RA procedure in response to a reconfiguration with sync, wherein the reconfiguration with sync is not associated with an LTM Cell switch; storing a second RA information associated with the third RA procedure, wherein the UE sets a purpose of the third RA procedure in the second RA information to a second purpose; and reporting the second RA information to a network in response to a second request from the network, as Kanneath further discloses a distinct reconfiguration-with-sync random-access scenario recorded under its own report indicator - a second purpose for an access not associated with the LTM cell switch - reported through the same network-requested mechanism (Kanneath, para [184], “The indicator reconfigurationWithSync is used if the UE executes a reconfiguration with sync.”; Kanneath, para [179], “receives the UE Information Request with at least one of connectfailreportreq, RA-reportreq, RLF-reportreq or any similar report request set to true from the network entity”).
Regarding claim 3, Kanneath discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first purpose is 'LTMRelated', as Kanneath further discloses setting the ra-purpose to a value which communicates that the random access is performed for LTM - under the broadest reasonable interpretation an 'LTMRelated' purpose value, the recited label itself adding no patentable distinction over the communicated content (Kanneath, para [149], “The NR UE sets the ra-purpose-r16 to earlyTA (or any other value which communicates that the random access is performed for LTM due to earlyTA) for this case.”).
Regarding claim 4, Kanneath discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the second purpose is 'reconfigurationwithsync', as Kanneath further discloses the reconfigurationWithSync indicator used when the UE executes a reconfiguration with sync (Kanneath, para [184], “The indicator reconfigurationWithSync is used if the UE executes a reconfiguration with sync.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kanneath in view of Veeramallu discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing an LTM procedure information associated with the LTM Cell switch to the second candidate cell, wherein the LTM procedure information indicates a Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI) associated with the second candidate cell; and transmitting the LTM procedure information to a network in response to a third request from the network, as Veeramallu further discloses the random access procedure assigning the unique C-RNTI identity for the accessed cell and the network requesting stored procedure information through the UE information request (Veeramallu, para [0056], “the random access procedure also serves the purpose of assigning a unique identity, the C-RNTI (Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier), to the terminal.”; Veeramallu, para [0059], “The network can then request from the UE to report information (e.g., about a RACH procedure, connection establishment failure, etc.) through a UE information request 402.”).
Accordingly, the rationale for combining Kanneath and Veeramallu is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Kanneath discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the UE indicates an identity of a Special Cell (SpCell) in the first RA information, as Kanneath further discloses an spCellID field indicating the identity of the SpCell of the cell group associated to the cell in which the reported random access was performed (Kanneath, para [184], “the SpCell of the cell group associated to the SCell in which the associated random access procedure was performed”).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 7, Kanneath discloses The method of claim 7, wherein the identity of the SpCell is an identity of a Primary Cell (PCell) if or when the candidate cell is configured in a candidate configuration associated with a Master Cell Group (MCG), and/or the identity of the SpCell is an identity of a Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell) if or when the candidate cell is configured in a candidate configuration associated with a Secondary Cell Group (SCG), as Kanneath further discloses setting the field to the identity of the PSCell when the random access is performed on a cell associated to the SCG, meeting the recited and/or alternative (Kanneath, para [184], “if the UE performs RA procedure on a SCell associated to the SCG, then this field is set to the CGI of the PSCell.”).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Kanneath in view of Veeramallu discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first request is carried by a UEInformationRequest message, as Veeramallu further discloses the network's RACH-report request being carried in the UEInformationRequest message (Veeramallu, para [0059], “The request for the UE to report information about a RACH procedure may be indicated by setting the parameter rach-ReportReq to .TRUE. in the UEinformationRequest message.”).
Accordingly, the rationale for combining Kanneath and Veeramallu is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Kanneath discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the UE initiates the second RA procedure in response to receiving an LTM Cell switch confirmed, as Kanneath further discloses the UE initiating the RACH-based cell-switch access upon receiving the MAC CE cell switch command instructing the move to the target candidate cell (Kanneath, para [79], “A gNB instructs UE to perform LTM, i.e. to move to target candidate cell through Downlink (DL) MAC CE”; Kanneath, para [79], “MAC CE triggering of the cell switch carries LTM related information for cell switch including the cell identifier”).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Kanneath discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the RA report is an RA-Report, as Kanneath further discloses storing the RA purpose and other information in the RA-Report (Kanneath, para [175], “storing the RA purpose and other information for optimisation of RA for early TA in RA-Report”).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Kanneath discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first RA procedure is Random Access Response (RAR)-less, as Kanneath further discloses the early-TA random access completing with the timing advance provided by a MAC CE rather than by a random access response, i.e., without an RAR (Kanneath, para [87], “if the UE (100) has not successfully received a random access response or a MAC CE which provides the timing advance or any other relevant response”; Kanneath, para [120], “The UE (100) cancels waiting for the timing advance in RAR or UL MAC CE.”).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Kanneath discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first RA information includes information of a first RA preamble transmission of the second RA procedure and/or includes ra-InformationCommon, as Kanneath further discloses the RA report carrying detailed per-attempt random access information for the reported access, its ra-InformationCommon field being mandatorily present, meeting the recited and/or alternative (Kanneath, para [183], “This field provides detailed information about the successive random access attempts”).
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Kanneath discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first request is successHO-ReportReq or ra-ReportReq, as Kanneath further discloses the report request being an RA-reportreq set to true in the UE Information Request (Kanneath, para [179], “receives the UE Information Request with at least one of connectfailreportreq, RA-reportreq, RLF-reportreq or any similar report request set to true from the network entity”).
Regarding claim 15, Kanneath discloses A User Equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and a processor operatively coupled with the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute a program code, because Kanneath teaches a UE comprising a memory and a processor with a communicatively coupled controller: (Kanneath, para [195] “a memory (130); a processor (110); and a random access controller (140), communicatively coupled to the memory (130) and the processor (110)”).
The remaining limitations of claim 15 recite, in apparatus form, operations identical to those of method claim 1, i.e., be configured with the LTM configuration including the first and second candidate cells; receive a first PDCCH order; initiate the first RA procedure for early TA acquisition and the second RA procedure for the LTM Cell switch; not store RA information associated with the first RA procedure in an RA report; store the first RA information under the first purpose; and report the first RA information in response to the first request, differing from claim 1 only in the statutory class of the recitation.
Thus, claim 15 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons, over the same combination of Kanneath, Veeramallu, and TS 38.331 and under the same rationale set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, the claim recites: The UE of claim 15, further comprising: initiate a third RA procedure in response to a reconfiguration with sync, wherein the reconfiguration with sync is not associated with an LTM Cell switch; store a second RA information associated with the third RA procedure, wherein the UE sets a purpose of the third RA procedure in the second RA information to a second purpose; and report the second RA information to a network in response to a second request from the network. Claim 16 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 15, the claim recites: The UE of claim 15, wherein the first purpose is 'LTMRelated'. Claim 17 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 16, the claim recites: The UE of claim 16, wherein the second purpose is 'reconfigurationwithsync'. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 15, the claim recites: The UE of claim 15, wherein the UE indicates an identity of a Special Cell (SpCell) in the first RA information. Claim 19 is analogous to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 15, the claim recites: The UE of claim 15, further comprising: store an LTM procedure information associated with the LTM Cell switch to the second candidate cell, wherein the LTM procedure information indicates a Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI) associated with the second candidate cell; and transmit the LTM procedure information to a network in response to a third request from the network. Claim 20 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights