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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2023/110582 (international filing date: 08/01/2023).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to clearly show features, wordings, numbers, and/or procedures as described in the specification. To be specific, details in one or more of the figures are blurry or unclear, hence, they are objected. For example, one or more of the features, wordings, numbers, or procedures described in figures 4, 5, 6, and 9 are blurry or unclear. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 line 3-4, "each LTM CSI resource configuration IE" lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 line 4-5, the phrase “the resource for channel measurement IE” is unclear and ambiguous as to whether it is referred to the “IE to configured resource for channel measurement” as in line 2-3. If indeed so, it is suggested that the phrase to be changed to --- the IE to configured the resource for channel measurement ---.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAMNJANOVIC et al. (US 20220022110 A1, hereinafter DAMNJANOVIC), in view of Leng et al. (US 20230362986 A1, hereinafter Leng).
Regarding claim 1,
DAMNJANOVIC teaches an apparatus of a user equipment (UE), the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to (in general, see fig. 11 and corresponding paragraphs 78-81):
decode, from signaling received from a base station, configuration information for a layer 1(L1)/layer 2 (L2) triggered mobility (LTM) procedure (DAMNJANOVIC, see at least para. 78-79, “...FIG. 11 is a call flow diagram illustrating L1/L2-based mobility in which a UE 1102 receives mobility signaling based on performing a downlink-based PHY layer or MAC layer mobility procedure. As illustrated, a UE 1102 receives a configuration 1110 from at least one cell (e.g., cell 1 1104) identifying cells that support L1/L2 mobility signaling and a measurement configuration for the set of cells...”);
configure transceiver circuitry to transmit a measurement report for LTM to the base station of the serving cell, the measurement report comprising measurement data for one or more candidate cells (DAMNJANOVIC, see at least para. 79, “...The UE 1102
then transmits a measurement report 1116 to at least one of the cells in the set of cells (e.g., a cell in the activated cell set that are configured to serve the UE). For example, the UE can transmit the measurement report 1116 to a designated primary cell in in the activated cell set...);
decode, from signaling received from the base station, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) cell switch command for the LTM procedure (DAMNJANOVIC, see at least para. 80 along with para. 64, “...In response, the UE 1102 receives, from cell 1104, L1/L2 mobility signaling 1118 (e.g., PHY layer or MAC layer mobility signaling) including information identifying one or more cells to add to the activated cell set. ... When the UE receives the L1/L2 mobility signaling 1118, the UE can add the identified one or more cells to the activated cell set and activate these cells at 1120...”, note that para. 64 discloses that “...the L1/L2 signaling (e.g., DCI and/or MAC-CEs) could carry activation and/or deactivation commands...”);
and
switch from the serving cell to one of the candidate cells based on the decoded MAC CE cell switch command for the LTM procedure (DAMNJANOVIC, see at least para. 80, “...Subsequently, the UE and the identified cells can communicate 1122
using the timing advance associated with the appropriate cell and included in the L1/L2 mobility signaling...”).
DAMNJANOVIC does not teach channel state information (CSI) report ... the CSI report comprising measurement data.
Leng teaches channel state information (CSI) report ... the CSI report comprising measurement data (in general, see fig. 18 and/or fig. 14 along with their respective paragraphs; for one non-limiting example, see at least para. 190, “...At operation 1815, the UE performs measurement for the SSB(s) and/or CSI-RS(s) of serving cell and candidate cells and reports separate or joint measurement results including L1-RSRP(s) of serving cell and candidate cells to the serving gNB...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Leng into DAMNJANOVIC for providing reduction on overhead and/or latency and interruption time in a handover procedure for bringing in the need of L1/L2 (Layer 1/Layer 2) inter-cell mobility, by which handover can be triggered by L1/L2 signaling based on L1 measurement (para. 122).
Regarding claim 2, DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 1.
DAMNJANOVIC further teaches wherein the configuration information for the LTM procedure comprises a first information element (IE) for each candidate cell of a cell group (DAMNJANOVIC, see at least para. 78, “...a UE 1102 receives a configuration 1110 from at least one cell (e.g., cell 1 1104) identifying cells that support L1/L2 mobility signaling and a measurement configuration for the set of cells...”).
DAMNJANOVIC does not teach the first IE comprising one or more of a second IE configured to indicate a candidate cell ID, a third IF configured to indicate a physical cell ID (PCI), a fourth IF configured to indicate a frequency of a set of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs), a fifth IF configured to indicate measurement timing configurations of the set of SSBs and a sixth IF configured to indicate a group of one or more transmission configuration indicator (TOT) states.
Leng teaches the first IE comprising one or more of a second IE configured to indicate a candidate cell ID, a third IF configured to indicate a physical cell ID (PCI), a fourth IF configured to indicate a frequency of a set of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs), a fifth IF configured to indicate measurement timing configurations of the set of SSBs and a sixth IF configured to indicate a group of one or more transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states (Leng, see at least para. 189, for one or more possible examples, “...At operation 1805, the UE receives RRCReconfiguration message(s) for an L1/L2-based mobility configuration from the serving gNB, including candidate cell PCI and/or logical ID, and/or a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration, and/or a measurement and reporting configuration, and/or a common/dedicated serving cell configuration for candidate cells...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Leng into DAMNJANOVIC for providing reduction on overhead and/or latency and interruption time in a handover procedure for bringing in the need of L1/L2 (Layer 1/Layer 2) inter-cell mobility, by which handover can be triggered by L1/L2 signaling based on L1 measurement (para. 122).
Regarding claim 3, DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 2.
DAMNJANOVIC does not teach wherein the first IE is included in a CellGroupConfig IE that is used to configure information for the cell group consisting of the one or more candidate cells.
Leng teaches wherein the first IE is included in a CellGroupConfig IE that is used to configure information for the cell group consisting of the one or more candidate cells (Leng, see at least para. 192 and/or 195 in view of para. 189, “...the cell group of the target cell in accordance with the received mac-CellGroupConfig in the target cell configuration at operation 1805...”, note that “...At operation 1805, the UE receives RRCReconfiguration message(s) for an L1/L2-based mobility configuration from the serving gNB...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Leng into DAMNJANOVIC for providing reduction on overhead and/or latency and interruption time in a handover procedure for bringing in the need of L1/L2 (Layer 1/Layer 2) inter-cell mobility, by which handover can be triggered by L1/L2 signaling based on L1 measurement (para. 122).
Regarding claim 4, DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 1.
DAMNJANOVIC does not teach wherein the configuration information for the LTM procedure comprises a LTM CSI resource configuration information element (IE) to configure a synchronization signal block (SSB) resource set for one or more intra-frequency or inter-frequency candidate cells.
Leng teaches wherein the configuration information for the LTM procedure comprises a LTM CSI resource configuration information element (IE) to configure a synchronization signal block (SSB) resource set for one or more intra-frequency or inter-frequency candidate cells (Leng, see at least para. 170 and TABLE 2, “...the configuration at operation 1405/1505 for a BFR-triggered L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility procedure without/with a random access can be included in the configuration of candidate cells of L1/L2 mobility, e.g., in IE ServingCellConfig. In one example, the configuration for BFR-triggered L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility is contained in IE BeamFailureRecoveryHO-Config in ServingCellConfig as follows. The maximum number of candidate cells enabling BFR-triggered L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility is indicated by maxNrofBFR-HO-Cells, which can be 8...”, note that in TABLE 2, SSB and CSI-RS is configured per each candidate cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Leng into DAMNJANOVIC for providing reduction on overhead and/or latency and interruption time in a handover procedure for bringing in the need of L1/L2 (Layer 1/Layer 2) inter-cell mobility, by which handover can be triggered by L1/L2 signaling based on L1 measurement (para. 122).
Regarding claim 5, DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 4.
DAMNJANOVIC does not teach wherein the LTM CSI resource configuration IE comprises an SSB resource list and a candidate cell Id List.
Leng teaches wherein the LTM CSI resource configuration IE comprises an SSB resource list and a candidate cell Id List (Leng, see at least para. 170 and TABLE 2, along with fig. 16, “...The maximum number of candidate cells enabling BFR-triggered L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility is indicated by maxNrofBFR-HO-Cells, which can be 8...”, note that in TABLE 2, SSB and CSI-RS is configured per each candidate cells, also note that fig. 16 shows list of cells corresponding to list of RSs, although for a different purpose).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Leng into DAMNJANOVIC for providing reduction on overhead and/or latency and interruption time in a handover procedure for bringing in the need of L1/L2 (Layer 1/Layer 2) inter-cell mobility, by which handover can be triggered by L1/L2 signaling based on L1 measurement (para. 122).
Regarding claim 6, DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 5.
DAMNJANOVIC does not teach wherein a number of entries of the SSB resource list is equal to a number of entries of the candidate cell ID list.
Leng teaches wherein a number of entries of the SSB resource list is equal to a number of entries of the candidate cell ID list (Leng, see at least para. 170 and TABLE 2, along with fig. 16, “...The maximum number of candidate cells enabling BFR-triggered L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility is indicated by maxNrofBFR-HO-Cells, which can be 8...”, note that in TABLE 2, SSB and CSI-RS is configured per each candidate cells, also note that fig. 16 shows list of cells corresponding to list of RSs, although for a different purpose).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Leng into DAMNJANOVIC for providing reduction on overhead and/or latency and interruption time in a handover procedure for bringing in the need of L1/L2 (Layer 1/Layer 2) inter-cell mobility, by which handover can be triggered by L1/L2 signaling based on L1 measurement (para. 122).
Regarding claim 7, DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 5.
DAMNJANOVIC does not teach wherein a first entry of the candidate cell ID list indicates a value of a candidate cell ID for a first entry of the SSB resource list.
Leng teaches wherein a first entry of the candidate cell ID list indicates a value of a candidate cell ID for a first entry of the SSB resource list (Leng, see at least para. 170 and TABLE 2, along with fig. 16, “...The maximum number of candidate cells enabling BFR-triggered L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility is indicated by maxNrofBFR-HO-Cells, which can be 8...”, note that in TABLE 2, SSB and CSI-RS is configured per each candidate cells, also note that fig. 16 shows list of cells corresponding to list of RSs, although for a different purpose).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Leng into DAMNJANOVIC for providing reduction on overhead and/or latency and interruption time in a handover procedure for bringing in the need of L1/L2 (Layer 1/Layer 2) inter-cell mobility, by which handover can be triggered by L1/L2 signaling based on L1 measurement (para. 122).
Regarding claim 8, DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 1.
DAMNJANOVIC does not teach wherein the configuration information for the LTM procedure further comprises an IE to configure resources for channel measurement for each LTM CSI resource configuration IE to associate with a CSI report, the resources for channel measurement IE configured to identify inter- cell channel measurement resources associated with the one or more candidate cells.
Leng teaches wherein the configuration information for the LTM procedure further comprises an IE to configure resources for channel measurement for each LTM CSI resource configuration IE to associate with a CSI report, the resources for channel measurement IE configured to identify inter- cell channel measurement resources associated with the one or more candidate cells (Leng, see at least para. 170 and TABLE 2 in view of para. 132 of fig. 14, “...The RRC message, e.g., RRCReconfiguration, can provide a BFD/BFR configuration per serving cell or per cell group, which can include BFD-RS sets, BFR-RS sets, BFD/BFR relevant parameters, and information included in RadioLinkMonitoringConfig, and/or BeamFailureRecoveryConfig, and/or BeamFailureRecoveryRSConfig. The gNB can configures the UE with one set of BFD-RSs (i.e., SSB and/or periodic CSI-RS and/or aperiodic CSI-RS and/or semi-persistent CSI-RS) or two sets of BFD-RSs for multi-TRP operation each associated with a TRP, and one TRP can be from an additional cell other than the serving cell. The BFR-RS used for BFR that can trigger L1/L2 mobility can associate with one L1/L2 mobility candidate cell...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Leng into DAMNJANOVIC for providing reduction on overhead and/or latency and interruption time in a handover procedure for bringing in the need of L1/L2 (Layer 1/Layer 2) inter-cell mobility, by which handover can be triggered by L1/L2 signaling based on L1 measurement (para. 122).
Regarding claim 10, DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 1.
DAMNJANOVIC does not teach wherein the configuration information for the LTM procedure comprises a candidate cell transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state list comprising multiple TCI states.
Leng teaches wherein the configuration information for the LTM procedure comprises a candidate cell transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state list comprising multiple TCI states. (Leng, see at least para. 189, “...At operation 1805, the UE receives RRCReconfiguration message(s) for an L1/L2-based mobility configuration from the serving gNB, including candidate cell PCI and/or logical ID, and/or a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration, and/or a measurement and reporting configuration, and/or a common/dedicated serving cell configuration for candidate cells...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Leng into DAMNJANOVIC for providing reduction on overhead and/or latency and interruption time in a handover procedure for bringing in the need of L1/L2 (Layer 1/Layer 2) inter-cell mobility, by which handover can be triggered by L1/L2 signaling based on L1 measurement (para. 122).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng, and further in view of Kung et al. (US20220030480 A1, hereinafter Kung).
Regarding claim 9,
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 1.
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng does not teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: configure the transceiver circuitry to transmit, prior to the CSI report for LTM, a layer 3 (L3) measurement report to the base station; decode, from signaling received from the base station, multiple CSI report type indication for LTM, wherein each type of CSI report type indication corresponds to a different set of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) and is configured by the network based on the L3 measurement report; andgenerate the CSI report for LTM, wherein generating the CSI report for LTM comprises selecting one of multiple CSI report types for LTM based on the CSI report type indications received from the base station.
Kung teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
configure the transceiver circuitry to transmit, prior to the CSI report for LTM, a layer 3 (L3) measurement report to the base station (Kung, see at least para. 353 of fig. 10, e.g. step 1014 and step 1018);
decode, from signaling received from the base station, multiple CSI report type indication for LTM, wherein each type of CSI report type indication corresponds to a different set of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) and is configured by the network based on the L3 measurement report (Kung, see at least para. 353 along with para. 291 and 313, “...the UE may transmit one or more periodic CSI reports and/or one or more aperiodic CSI reports in response to receiving the signaling. The UE may activate a periodic transmission of reporting (e.g., CSI reporting) in response to receiving the signaling...”, note that for one non-limiting example, para. 291 discloses “...The resource information may comprise one or more resources associated with CSI reporting. For example, the UE may transmit, based on resource information (e.g., using the one or more resources associated CSI reporting), one or more periodic CSI reports to the second cell in response to receiving the second information...”, also that that para. 313 discloses “...The second information may indicate reference signal information associated with the second cell. For example, the second information may comprise one or more reference signal indexes (e.g., Synchronization Signal Block (SSB)-Index and/or CSI-RS-Index) associated with the second cell...”);
and
generate the CSI report for LTM, wherein generating the CSI report for LTM comprises selecting one of multiple CSI report types for LTM based on the CSI report type indications received from the base station (Kung, see at least para. 353 along with para. 291 and 313, “...the UE may transmit one or more periodic CSI reports and/or one or more aperiodic CSI reports in response to receiving the signaling. The UE may activate a periodic transmission of reporting (e.g., CSI reporting) in response to receiving the signaling...”, note that for one non-limiting example, para. 291 discloses “...The resource information may comprise one or more resources associated with CSI reporting. For example, the UE may transmit, based on resource information (e.g., using the one or more resources associated CSI reporting), one or more periodic CSI reports to the second cell in response to receiving the second information...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kung into DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng for providing benefits including, but not limited to, increased efficiency and/or increased speed of communication between devices (e.g., a UE and/or a network node). The increased efficiency and/or increased speed may be a result of enabling the UE to handle Layer-1 and/or Layer-2 (L1/L2) mobility procedures (para. 451).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng, and further in view of ZHOU et al. (US 20240129819 A1, hereinafter ZHOU).
Regarding claim 11,
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 1.
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng further teaches wherein the configuration information for the LTM procedure includes a first information element (IE) for each TCI state (Leng, see at least para. 189, “...At operation 1805, the UE receives RRCReconfiguration message(s) for an L1/L2-based mobility configuration from the serving gNB, including candidate cell PCI and/or logical ID, and/or a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration, and/or a measurement and reporting configuration, and/or a common/dedicated serving cell configuration for candidate cells...”).
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng does not teach a quasi co-location (QCL) source reference signal parameter of the first IE is limited to synchronization signal block (SSB).
ZHOU teaches a quasi co-location (QCL) source reference signal parameter of the first IE is limited to synchronization signal block (SSB). (ZHOU, see at least para. 77 of fig. 4, “...as shown by reference number 420, a base station may trigger L1/L2 inter-cell mobility (e.g., an LTM procedure) for a UE using L1/L2 signaling (e.g., DCI or a MAC CE) that indicates a selected transmission configuration indication (TCI) state quasi co-located (QCLed) with a reference signal (e.g., a synchronization signal block (SSB)) associated with a PCI,...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate ZHOU into DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng to reduce latency, reduce overhead, and/or otherwise increase efficiency of the cell switch (para. 75).
Regarding claim 12,
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng and ZHOU teaches claim 11.
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches wherein the candidate cell TCI state list is configured (Leng, see at least para. 189, “...L1/L2-based mobility configuration from the serving gNB, including candidate cell PCI and/or logical ID, and/or a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration, ..., and/or a common/dedicated serving cell configuration for candidate cells...”).
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng does not teach configured on a per candidate cell basis.
ZHOU teaches configured on a per candidate cell basis. (ZHOU, see at least para. 77, “...For example, in FIG. 4A, the UE may be communicating with the serving cell 410 using a TCI state that is QCLed with an SSB from a PCI associated with the serving cell 410 (e.g., shown as PCI 1 in FIG. 4A), and L1/L2 signaling may trigger inter-cell mobility by indicating that the UE is to switch to communicating using a TCI state that is QCLed with an SSB from a PCI associated with a non-serving neighbor cell 415 (e.g., shown as PCI 2 in FIG. 4A)...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate ZHOU into DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng to reduce latency, reduce overhead, and/or otherwise increase efficiency of the cell switch (para. 75).
Regarding claim 13,
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng and Agiwal teaches claim 11.
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches wherein the candidate cell TCI state list ...includes multiple TCI states (Leng, see at least para. 189, “...L1/L2-based mobility configuration from the serving gNB, including candidate cell PCI and/or logical ID, and/or a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration, ..., and/or a common/dedicated serving cell configuration for candidate cells...”).
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng does not teach candidate cell TCI state list is common to multiple candidate cells.
ZHOU teaches candidate cell TCI state list is common to multiple candidate cells. (ZHOU, see at least para. 99, “...the reference signal configuration may indicate a TCI state associated with an SpCell TRP group...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate ZHOU into DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng to reduce latency, reduce overhead, and/or otherwise increase efficiency of the cell switch (para. 75).
Regarding claim 14,
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng and Agiwal teaches claim 10.
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches wherein the configuration information for the LTM procedure includes a first information element (IE) for each TCI state and a quasi co-location (QCL) source reference signal parameter of the first IE is limited to an index of a synchronization signal block (SSB) and an index of a CSI-RS (Leng, see at least para. 170 and TABLE 2, “...the configuration at operation 1405/1505 for a BFR-triggered L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility procedure without/with a random access can be included in the configuration of candidate cells of L1/L2 mobility, e.g., in IE ServingCellConfig. In one example, the configuration for BFR-triggered L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility is contained in IE BeamFailureRecoveryHO-Config in ServingCellConfig as follows. The maximum number of candidate cells enabling BFR-triggered L1/L2-based inter-cell mobility is indicated by maxNrofBFR-HO-Cells, which can be 8...”, note that in TABLE 2, SSB and CSI-RS is configured per each candidate cells).
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng does not teach tracking reference signal (TRS).
ZHOU teaches tracking reference signal (TRS) (ZHOU, see at least para. 99, “...channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) for tracking (TRS)...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate ZHOU into DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng to reduce latency, reduce overhead, and/or otherwise increase efficiency of the cell switch (para. 75).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 13.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng, and further in view of SHARMA et al. (US 20210329515 A1, hereinafter SHARMA).
Regarding claim 17,
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng teaches claim 1.
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng does not teach Decode, from signaling received from the base station prior to the MACCE for the cell switch command for the LTM procedure, a second medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) configured to activate one or more TCI states for one or more candidate cells in LTM.
SHARMA teaches Decode, from signaling received from the base station prior to the MACCE for the cell switch command for the LTM procedure, a second medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) configured to activate one or more TCI states for one or more candidate cells in LTM. (SHARMA, in general, see fig. 8 along with fig. 5 and their respective paragraphs; in particular, see at least para. 128 and 130, e.g. step 807 and step 811)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate SHARMA into DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng for achieving high latency, high efficiency, and high throughput (para. 57).
Regarding claim 18,
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng and SHARMA teaches claim 17.
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng does not teach wherein the one or more TCI states in the second MACCE are for a single candidate cell.
SHARMA teaches wherein the one or more TCI states in the second MACCE are for a single candidate cell. (SHARMA, see at least para. 128, “...These TCI states may be associated with specific TRP...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate SHARMA into DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng for achieving high latency, high efficiency, and high throughput (para. 57).
Regarding claim 19,
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng and SHARMA teaches claim 17.
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng does not teach the one or more TCI states in the second MACCE are for multiple candidate cells.
SHARMA teaches the one or more TCI states in the second MACCE are for multiple candidate cells. (SHARMA, see at least para. 127, “...Also, serving cell/TRP configures the TCI states for neighbor TRPs...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate SHARMA into DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng for achieving high latency, high efficiency, and high throughput (para. 57).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng and SHARMA, and further in view of Farag et al. (US 20220061056 A1, hereinafter Farag).
Regarding claim 20,
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng and SHARMA teaches claim 19.
DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng and SHARMA does not teach wherein the second MAC CE comprises multiple candidate cell ID fields configured to indicate whether a TCI state associated with each respective candidate cell ID is activated.
Farag teaches wherein the second MAC CE comprises multiple candidate cell ID fields configured to indicate whether a TCI state associated with each respective candidate cell ID is activated. (Farag, in general, see fig. 23 and in view of fig. 13; in particular, see at least para. 279 along with para. 190, “...(example 2 of FIG. 23), a TCI state of a multiple entities (e.g., N) can be included in the MAC CE. Wherein, an entity can be serving cell ID, and/or a BWP ID and/or a TRP ID, and/or a TRP panel ID and/or a UE panel ID, etc. The number of entities (e.g., N), can be indicated in the MAC CE, or the number of entities (e.g., N) can be configured by higher layer signaling (e.g., RRC signaling and/or MAC CE signaling). A TCI state can be common for UL and DL channels and/or separate TCI states for DL and UL channels...”, note that “...TCI state signaled or activated, can be K TCI states wherein, K≥1. Wherein, the multiple TCI states can correspond to different entities, e.g., UL/DL directions, and/or serving cells, and/or bandwidth parts (BWPs) and/or component carriers and/or TRPs and/or TRP panels and/or UE panels...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Farag into DAMNJANOVIC in view of Leng and SHARMA to reduce the latency and overhead of beam indication (para. 116).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights