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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/2/26, 11/17/25, 8/20/25, 6/12/25, 1/15/25, and 11/13/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 10-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 11, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,660,030. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following correspondences.
Regarding claim 1, “a method, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) connected to a first cell, an activation for a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of a first configured TCI state pool associated with a second cell and further receiving a configuration of a second TCI state of a second TCI state pool associated with the second cell” corresponds to “a method, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) connected to a first cell, an activation for a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of a first configured TCI state pool configured under serving cell configurations for beam management (BM)” as well as “receiving, by the UE, a configuration of a second TCI state of a second TCI state pool associated with a lower-layer triggered mobility (LTM) candidate cell” in claim 1 of the above U.S .Patent.
“Determining, by the UE, that the first activated TCI state and the second TCI state share one or more properties” corresponds to “determining, by the UE, that the second TCI state is already active on any of the configured TCI state pools” in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
“Based upon the determining, activating, by the UE, the second TCI state of the second cell” corresponds to “based upon the determining, activating, by the UE, the second TCI state of the second TCI state pool” in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “performing, by the UE, a cell switch to the second cell, maintaining the activated second TCI state of the second cell” corresponds to “performing, by the UE, a cell switch to the LTM candidate cell, and maintaining the activated second TCI state of the LTM candidate cell” in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 1 of the instant application does not claim “receiving, by the UE, a message for activating the second TCI state” or “with a reduced activation delay compared with a situation where the second TCI state is not active on any of the configured TCI state pools”. Therefore, claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). The omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, “an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform the following: transmitting, by a first cell, a first message to a user equipment (UE) that includes at least a first activated transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of a first TCI state pool associated with a second cell and further includes a second TCI state of a second TCI state pool associated with the second cell, based upon the first activated TCI state and the second TCI state sharing one or more properties; performing, by the first cell, beam management using the first TCI state” corresponds to “a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE at least to perform at least the following: receiving, by the UE connected to first cell, an activation for a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of a first configured TCI state pool configured under serving cell configurations for beam management (BM)” as well as “receiving, by the UE, a configuration of a second TCI state of a second TCI state pool associated with a lower-layer triggered mobility (LTM) candidate cell” in claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “transmitting, by the first cell, to a user equipment, an instruction for a lower-layer triggered mobility (LTM) cell switch to the second cell, the instruction comprising the second TCI state for the second cell” corresponds to “performing, by the UE, a cell switch to the LTM candidate cell, and maintaining the activated second TCI state of the LTM candidate cell” in claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 2 of the instant application does not claim “determining, by the UE, that the second TCI state is already active on any of the configured TCI state pools” and “based upon the determining, activating, by the UE, the second TCI state of the second TCI state pool with a reduced activation delay compared with a situation where the second TCI state is not active on any of the configured TCI state pools”.
Therefore, claim 2 merely broadens the scope of claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). The omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Furthermore, claim 2 appears to recite “transmitting” steps performed at one end of the communication system that are complementary to “receiving” steps performed at another end of the communication system as claimed in claim 11. For this additional reason, claim 2 is considered not patentably distinct from claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 3, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 4, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 19 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 5, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 19 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 8, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 10, “a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform at least the following: receiving, by the user equipment (UE) connected to a first cell, an activation for a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of a first configured TCI state pool associated with a second cell and further receiving a configuration of a second TCI state of a second TCI state pool associated with the second cell” corresponds to “a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE at least to perform at least the following: receiving, by the UE connected to first cell, an activation for a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of a first configured TCI state pool configured under serving cell configurations for beam management (BM)” as well as “receiving, by the UE, a configuration of a second TCI state of a second TCI state pool associated with a lower-layer triggered mobility (LTM) candidate cell” in claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
“Determining, by the UE, that the first activated TCI state and the second TCI state share one or more properties” corresponds to “determining, by the UE, that the second TCI state is already active on any of the configured TCI state pools” in claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
“Based upon the determining, activating, by the UE, the second TCI state of the second cell” corresponds to “based upon the determining, activating, by the UE, the second TCI state of the second TCI state pool” in claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “performing, by the UE, a cell switch to the second cell, maintaining the activated second TCI state of the second cell” corresponds to “performing, by the UE, a cell switch to the LTM candidate cell, and maintaining the activated second TCI state of the LTM candidate cell” in claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 10 of the instant application does not claim “receiving, by the UE, a message for activating the second TCI state” or “with a reduced activation delay compared with a situation where the second TCI state is not active on any of the configured TCI state pools”. Therefore, claim 10 merely broadens the scope of claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). The omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 11, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 17 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 12, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 18 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 13, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 14, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 15, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 16, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 9 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 17, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 19 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 18, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 19 of the above U.S. Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record, Zhang et al. (U.S. 2025/0358696) teaches a method and system for Layer 1 or Layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) where a cell switch is made to a target LTM candidate cell (second cell), and where a configuration for LTM candidate cells includes a common L1 measurement configuration pool (TCI state pool) that further includes a list of transmission configuration indication (TCI) states information for serving cells (first cell) and LTM candidate cells as shown in Figure 7 and spoken of on page 1, paragraph [0004], as well as pages 5-6, paragraphs [0054]-[0065].
Zhang et al. as well as the other prior art of record fail to teach or suggest “receiving, by a user equipment (UE) connected to a first cell, an activation for a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of a first configured TCI state pool associated with a second cell and further receiving a configuration of a second TCI state of a second TCI state pool associated with the second cell” as well as “determining, by the UE, that the first activated TCI state and the second TCI state share one or more properties” as well as “based upon the determining, activating, by the UE, the second TCI state of the second cell” in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
Similar reasoning applies to corresponding “apparatus” claim 2 and “user equipment (UE)” claim 10.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 11-21 are further limiting to independent claims 2 and 10 and are thus also allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights