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 .
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.
The following title is suggested: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR RRC INFORMATION ELEMENT EXECUTION BASED ON CONDITIONS.
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 5, 6, 7, 19 recites the limitation "the second condition set". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be interpreted as best understood.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-7, 14, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Futaki et al (Pub No: 2022/0070740).
As to claim 1, Futaki teaches a first node for wireless communications (Futaki, [0041], a source node), comprising:
a first receiver, receiving a first signaling, the first signaling (Futaki, [0041], receiving a first configuration) comprising a first RRC information element, the first signaling configuring a first condition set and a first time window (Futaki, [0043], the signalling includes threshold condition and time to trigger (time window)) in a handover execution RRC IE [0060][0062]); there existing a dependency relation between the first condition set and the first time window; an execution of the first RRC information element depending on the first condition set (Futaki, [0136], the execution of the HO depends on the first condition threshold being met during the period);
wherein the first RRC information element configures a target cell of the first node (Futaki, [0061], the RRC IE required for target cell setting for HO); the meaning of an execution of the first RRC information element depending on the first condition set is: when at least one condition in the first condition set is not met, the first RRC information element is not executed (Futaki, [0136], the HO is not executed when the condition (threshold) is not met); when all conditions in the first condition set are met, the first RRC information element is delayed in execution; the delayed in execution is not later than an end of the first time window (Futaki, [0136], when the execution conditions are met the HO is executed with an offset TTT [0043][0060][0116]).
As to claim 2, Futaki teaches wherein the meaning of there existing a dependency relation between the first condition set and the first time window is: the first condition set depending on the first time window (Futaki, [0136], the HO condition threshold dependent on being within the period).
As to claim 3, Futaki teaches wherein the meaning of there existing a dependency relation between the first condition set and the first time window is: the first time window depending on the first condition set (Futaki, [0136], the HO condition threshold dependent on being within the period).
As to claim 4, Futaki teaches wherein the first signaling comprises first indication information, the first indication information indicates that when all conditions in the first condition set are met, the first RRC information element is allowed to be delayed in execution (Futaki, [0136], when the execution conditions are met the HO is executed with an offset TTT [0043][0060][0116]).
As to claim 5, Futaki teaches wherein the meaning of delayed in execution comprises: when all conditions in the first condition set are met, and only when the second condition set is met, the first RRC information element is executed; the second condition set is not explicitly indicated (Futaki, [0136], when the execution conditions are met the HO is executed with an offset TTT [0043][0060][0116], there is no indication of a second condition).
As to claim 6, Futaki teaches wherein the meaning of delayed in execution comprises: when all conditions in the first condition set are met, and only when the second condition set is met, the first RRC information element is executed; the second condition set is not explicitly indicated (Futaki, [0136], when the execution conditions are met the HO is executed with an offset TTT [0043][0060][0116], there is no indication of a second condition).
As to claim 7, Futaki teaches wherein the meaning of delayed in execution comprises: when all conditions in the first condition set are met, and only when the second condition set is met, the first RRC information element is executed; the second condition set is not explicitly indicated (Futaki, [0136], when the execution conditions are met the HO is executed with an offset TTT [0043][0060][0116], there is no indication of a second condition).
As to claim 14, Futaki teaches wherein the second condition set comprises at least one of being at a location determined by the first location information and being within a time determined by first time information (Futaki, [0048], the configuration information includes location information for the condition).
As to claim 18, Futaki teaches a method in a first node for wireless communications (Futaki, [0041], a method for communication), comprising:
receiving a first signaling (Futaki, [0041], receiving a first configuration), the first signaling comprising a first RRC information element, the first signaling configuring a first condition set and a first time window (Futaki, [0043], the signalling includes threshold condition and time to trigger (time window)); there existing a dependency relation between the first condition set and the first time window; an execution of the first RRC information element depending on the first condition set (Futaki, [0136], the execution of the HO depends on the first condition threshold being met during the period);
wherein the first RRC information element configures a target cell of the first node (Futaki, [0061], the RRC IE required for target cell setting for HO); the meaning of an execution of the first RRC information element depending on the first condition set is: when at least one condition in the first condition set is not met, the first RRC information element is not executed (Futaki, [0136], the HO is not executed when the condition (threshold) is not met); when all conditions in the first condition set are met, the first RRC information element is delayed in execution; the delayed in execution is not later than an end of the first time window (Futaki, [0136], when the execution conditions are met the HO is executed with an offset TTT [0043][0060][0116]).
As to claim 19, Futaki teaches wherein the meaning of delayed in execution comprises: when all conditions in the first condition set are met, and only when the second condition set is met, the first RRC information element is executed; the second condition set is not explicitly indicated (Futaki, [0136], when the execution conditions are met the HO is executed with an offset TTT [0043][0060][0116], there is no indication of a second condition).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claims above, and further in view of Rune et al (Pub No: 2022/0191752).
As to claim 8, Futaki teaches the limitations of claim 4 and the second condition set (Futaki, [0043], the signaling includes threshold condition)
Futaki does not teach comprises at least one prediction-based condition.
However, Rune teaches one prediction-based condition (Rune, [0077], a probability (prediction) indication condition configured for CHO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “prediction-based condition” as taught by Rune in the system of Futaki, so that it would improve probability assessments and allow a safety margin with more generous admission control (Rune, [0076]).
As to claim 9, Futaki teaches the limitations of claim 6 and the second condition set (Futaki, [0043], the signaling includes threshold condition)
Futaki does not teach comprises at least one prediction-based condition.
However, Rune teaches one prediction-based condition (Rune, [0077], a probability (prediction) indication condition configured for CHO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “prediction-based condition” as taught by Rune in the system of Futaki, so that it would improve probability assessments and allow a safety margin with more generous admission control (Rune, [0076]).
As to claim 10, Futaki teaches the limitations of claim 7 and the second condition set (Futaki, [0043], the signaling includes threshold condition)
Futaki does not teach comprises at least one prediction-based condition.
However, Rune teaches one prediction-based condition (Rune, [0077], a probability (prediction) indication condition configured for CHO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “prediction-based condition” as taught by Rune in the system of Futaki, so that it would improve probability assessments and allow a safety margin with more generous admission control (Rune, [0076]).
As to claim 11, Rune teaches wherein the prediction comprises handover success probability (Rune, [0076], likelihood of handover).
As to claim 12, Rune teaches wherein the prediction comprises handover success probability (Rune, [0076], likelihood of handover).
As to claim 13, Rune teaches wherein the prediction comprises handover success probability (Rune, [0076], likelihood of handover).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome 112 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Persson et al (Pub No: 2025/0184854) [0053]
Yu et al (Pub No: 2024/0276323) [0148-621].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM -5:00 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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 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 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.
/AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights