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 (IDSs), submitted on 30 October 2024, 10 July 2025, and 26 November 2025, were filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 30 October 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 30 October 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “in a case that at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between the terminal and a position indicated by the reference point information is less than or equal to the distance threshold, performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “in a case that at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between the terminal and a position indicated by the reference point information is less than or equal to the distance threshold”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information being higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between the terminal and a position indicated by the reference point information being less than or equal to the distance threshold”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “in a case that at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between the terminal and a position indicated by the reference point information is greater than the distance threshold, not performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “in a case that at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between the terminal and a position indicated by the reference point information is greater than the distance threshold”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information being higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between the terminal and a position indicated by the reference point information being greater than the distance threshold”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “in a case that at least one of a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is less than or equal to a distance threshold corresponding to the at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information, performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “in a case that at least one of a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is less than or equal to a distance threshold corresponding to the at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to at least one of a first frequency being associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency being higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal being less than or equal to a distance threshold corresponding to the at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “in a case that at least one of a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is greater than a distance threshold corresponding to the each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information, not performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “in a case that at least one of a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is greater than a distance threshold corresponding to the each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information“) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to at least one of a first frequency being associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency being higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal being greater than a distance threshold corresponding to the each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “in a case that at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition, and a distance between the terminal and a position corresponding to the reference point information is less than or equal to the distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information, performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “in a case that at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition, and a distance between the terminal and a position corresponding to the reference point information is less than or equal to the distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information being equal to a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meeting a quality condition, and a distance between the terminal and a position corresponding to the reference point information being less than or equal to the distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “in a case that at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition, and a distance between the terminal and a position corresponding to the reference point information is greater than the distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information, not performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “in a case that at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition, and a distance between the terminal and a position corresponding to the reference point information is greater than the distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to at least one of a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information being the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meeting a quality condition, and a distance between the terminal and a position corresponding to the reference point information being greater than the distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “in a case that at least one of a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition, and a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is less than or equal to a distance threshold corresponding to the at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information, performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “in a case that at least one of a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition, and a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is less than or equal to a distance threshold corresponding to the at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information“) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to at least one of a first frequency being associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency being equal to a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meeting a quality condition, and a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal being less than or equal to a distance threshold corresponding to the at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information “. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “in a case that at least one of a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition, and a distance between a position corresponding to each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is greater than a distance threshold corresponding to the each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information, not performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “in a case that at least one of a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition, and a distance between a position corresponding to each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is greater than a distance threshold corresponding to the each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to at least one of a first frequency being associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information, a reselection priority of the first frequency being equal to a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, a signal quality of the current serving cell meeting a quality condition, and a distance between a position corresponding to each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal being greater than a distance threshold corresponding to the each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, said claim recites “wherein the configuration information comprises at least one piece of reference point information and a distance threshold corresponding to every one of the at least one at least one piece of reference point information, and at least one of every at least one piece of reference point information or the distance threshold corresponding to the every at least one piece of reference point information is associated with at least one frequency”. Here, Examiner is unable to determine the contents of “the configuration information” because the Applicant has elected to recite a disjunctive list within a disjunctive list. For instance, Examiner is unable to determine whether “the configuration information” includes, or is required to include, “one of every at least one piece of reference point information or the distance threshold corresponding to the every at least one piece of reference point information is associated with at least one frequency” or whether “the configuration information” is only required to include “reference point information and a distance threshold corresponding to every one of the at least one at least one piece of reference point information”. Examiner is uncertain how to interpret a list requiring at least one element of a following list where the following list requires another at least one element of another subsequent list. For the purpose of examination, Examine will only interpret the “configuration information” as being required to include either “reference point information and a distance threshold corresponding to every one of the at least one at least one piece of reference point information” or “at least one of every at least one piece of reference point information or the distance threshold corresponding to the every at least one piece of reference point information is associated with at least one frequency;”. Given the lack of clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests that Applicant clarify the claim language to indicate the contents of “the configuration information”.
Regarding Claims 2-13, 22, and 24, said claims are likewise rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 1.
Claims 15-18 and 23 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 15, said claim recites “wherein the configuration information comprises at least one piece of reference point information and a distance threshold corresponding to every one of the at least one piece of reference point information, and at least one of the every reference point information or the distance threshold corresponding to the every piece of reference point information is associated with at least one frequency” which renders the claim unclear. Here, Examiner is unable to determine the contents of “the configuration information” because the Applicant has elected to recite a disjunctive list within a disjunctive list. Given the lack of clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests that Applicant clarify the claim language to indicate the contents of “the configuration information”.
Regarding Claims 16-18 and 23, said claims are likewise rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 15.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 15-16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20240187955 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wu”).
Regarding Claim 22, Wu discloses a terminal, comprising:
a processor (¶197-200 & Fig. 7, Wu discloses a user equipment (UE) includes a processor 708); and
a transceiver connected to the processor (¶197-200 & Fig. 7, Wu discloses the UE further includes a transmitter 704 and a receiver 702 connected to the processor 708); wherein the processor is configured to:
receive configuration information sent by a network device (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses receiving, by a user equipment (UE), measurement configuration information sent by a network device where the measurement configuration information comprises a location-based condition),
wherein the configuration information comprises at least one piece of
reference point information (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that the location-based condition comprises at least one location of at least one conditional handover (CHO) candidate target cell) and a distance threshold corresponding to every one of the at least one piece of reference point information (¶39 & ¶51 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that the location-based condition comprises at least one distance threshold corresponding to each of the at least one CHO candidate target cells), and
at least one of every piece of reference point information or the distance threshold corresponding to the every piece of reference point information is associated with at least one frequency; and
perform a neighboring cell measurement (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses performing a measurement on the at least one CHO candidate cell in order to report the measurement report to the source BS. Examiner correlates the cell corresponding to the CHO candidate cell to "a neighboring cell") based on the at least one piece of reference point information and the distance threshold corresponding to the every piece of reference point information (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that the performance of the measurement is based upon the location-based condition. ¶115 & ¶139-144, Wu further discloses that the measurement may be based upon a measurement-based condition).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses wherein the at least one at least one piece of reference point information indicates a position of a neighboring cell (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that the location-based condition comprises at least one location of at least one conditional handover (CHO) candidate target cell. Examiner correlates the cell corresponding to the CHO candidate cell to "a neighboring cell").
Regarding Claim 4, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses [the method], further comprising:
in a case that at least one of
a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and
a distance between the terminal and a position indicated by the reference point information is less than or equal to the distance threshold (¶51 & ¶130, Wu discloses that the location-based condition is a distance between a location corresponding to the UE and a location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell is an offset, or value, less than a first distance threshold),
performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that the performance of the measurement and the reporting of the measurement report are based upon the location-based condition being satisfied).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses [the method], further comprising:
in a case that at least one of
a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and
a distance between the terminal and a position indicated by the reference point information is greater than the distance threshold (¶51 & ¶130, Wu discloses that the location-based condition is a distance between a location corresponding to the UE and a location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell is an offset, or value, less than a distance threshold),
not performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that not performing a measurement and not reporting the measurement report based upon the location-based condition not being satisfied. Examiner notes that the presence of a frequency as an inherent feature of a wireless apparatus in order to achieve communication).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses [the method], further comprising:
in a case that at least one of
a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information,
a reselection priority of the first frequency is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and
a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is less than or equal to a distance threshold corresponding to the at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information (¶51 & ¶130, Wu discloses that the location-based condition is a distance between a location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell and a location corresponding to the UE is an offset, or value, less than a distance threshold. Examiner correlates the location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell to "a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information". Examiner correlates the at least one location corresponding at least one CHO target cell to "multiple pieces of reference point information"),
performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses performing a measurement and reporting a measurement report are based upon the location-based condition being satisfied. Examiner notes that the presence of a frequency as an inherent feature of a wireless apparatus in order to achieve communication).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses [the method], further comprising:
in a case that at least one of
a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information,
a reselection priority of the first frequency is higher than a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell, and
a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is greater than a distance threshold corresponding to the each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information (¶51 & ¶130, Wu discloses that the location-based condition is a distance between a location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell and a location corresponding to the UE is an offset, or value, less than a distance threshold. Examiner correlates the location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell to "a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information". Examiner correlates the at least one location corresponding at least one CHO target cell to "multiple pieces of reference point information"),
not performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that not performing a measurement and not reporting the measurement report based upon the location-based condition not being satisfied. Examiner notes that the presence of a frequency as an inherent feature of a wireless apparatus in order to achieve communication).
Regarding Claim 8, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses [the method], further comprising:
in a case that at least one of
a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell,
a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition (¶131, Wu discloses that the location-based condition, or CondEvent A5, is a measurement result of a PCell or a PSCell (e.g., the serving cell of the UE) becomes worse than measurement absolute threshold 1), and
a distance between the terminal and a position corresponding to the reference point information is less than or equal to the distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information (¶51 & ¶130, Wu discloses that the location-based condition is a distance between the UE and the CHO candidate target cell is an offset less than a first distance threshold),
performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses performing a measurement and reporting a measurement report are based upon the location-based condition being satisfied. Examiner notes that the presence of a frequency as an inherent feature of a wireless apparatus in order to achieve communication).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses [the method], further comprising:
in a case that at least one of
a reselection priority of a first frequency associated with reference point information or a distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell,
a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition (¶131, Yiu discloses that the location-based condition, or CondEvent A5, is a measurement result of a PCell or a PSCell (e.g., the serving cell of the UE) becomes worse than measurement absolute threshold 1), and
a distance between the terminal and a position corresponding to the reference point information is greater than the distance threshold corresponding to the reference point information (¶51, Yiu discloses that the location-based condition is a distance between the UE and the CHO candidate target cell is an offset less than a first distance threshold),
not performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses not performing a measurement and not reporting a measurement report are based upon the location-based condition being satisfied. Examiner notes that the presence of a frequency as an inherent feature of a wireless apparatus in order to achieve communication).
Regarding Claim 10, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses [the method], further comprising:
in a case that at least one of
a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information,
a reselection priority of the first frequency is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell,
a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition (¶131, Wu discloses that the location-based condition, or CondEvent A5, is a measurement result of a PCell or a PSCell (e.g., the serving cell of the UE) becomes worse than measurement absolute threshold 1), and
a distance between a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is less than or equal to a distance threshold corresponding to the at least one piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information (¶51 & ¶130, Yiu discloses that the location-based condition is a distance between a location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell and a location corresponding to the UE is an offset, or value, less than a distance threshold. Examiner correlates the location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell to "a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information". Examiner correlates the at least one location corresponding at least one CHO target cell to "multiple pieces of reference point information"),
performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses performing a measurement and reporting a measurement report are based upon the location-based condition being satisfied. Examiner notes that the presence of a frequency as an inherent feature of a wireless apparatus in order to achieve communication).
Regarding Claim 11, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses [the method], further comprising:
in a case that at least one of
a first frequency is associated with multiple pieces of reference point information or distance thresholds corresponding to the multiple pieces of reference point information,
a reselection priority of the first frequency is the same as a priority of a second frequency of a current serving cell,
a signal quality of the current serving cell meets a quality condition (¶131, Wu discloses that the location-based condition, or CondEvent A5, is a measurement result of a PCell or a PSCell (e.g., the serving cell of the UE) becomes worse than measurement absolute threshold 1), and
a distance between a position corresponding to each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information and the terminal is greater than a distance threshold corresponding to the each piece of reference point information in the multiple pieces of reference point information (¶51 & ¶130, Wu discloses that the location-based condition is a distance between a location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell and a location corresponding to the UE is an offset, or value, less than a distance threshold. Examiner correlates the location corresponding to the CHO candidate target cell to "a position corresponding to at least one piece of reference point information". Examiner correlates the at least one location corresponding at least one CHO target cell to "multiple pieces of reference point information"),
not performing the neighboring cell measurement on the first frequency (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that not performing a measurement and not reporting the measurement report based upon the location-based condition not being satisfied. Examiner notes that the presence of a frequency as an inherent feature of a wireless apparatus in order to achieve communication).
Regarding Claim 12, Wu discloses the method according to claim 8.
Wu further discloses wherein the quality condition is that a cell selection electrical level of the serving cell is greater than a preset electrical level (¶131, Wu discloses that the location-based condition, or CondEvent A5, is a measurement result of a PCell or a PSCell (e.g., the serving cell of the UE) becomes worse or better than measurement absolute threshold 1), and a cell selection quality of the serving cell is greater than a preset quality (¶131, Wu discloses that the location-based condition, or CondEvent A5, is a measurement result of a PCell or a PSCell (e.g., the serving cell of the UE) becomes worse or better than measurement absolute threshold 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Wu discloses a neighboring cell measurement method, performed by a network device, and comprising:
sending configuration information to a terminal (¶50 & Fig. 3 (301), Wu discloses sending, by a network device, measurement configuration information to a user equipment (UE) where the measurement configuration information comprises a location-based condition),
wherein the configuration information comprises at least one piece of
reference point information (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that the location-based condition comprises at least one location of at least one conditional handover (CHO) candidate target cell) and a distance threshold corresponding to every one of the at least one piece of reference point information (¶39 & ¶51 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that the location-based condition comprises at least one distance threshold corresponding to each of the at least one CHO candidate target cells), and
at least one of the every reference point information or the distance threshold corresponding to the every piece of reference point information is associated with at least one frequency;
the at least one piece of reference point information and the distance threshold corresponding to the every piece of reference point information are used by the terminal to perform a neighboring cell measurement (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that the at least one location and at least one distance threshold of the location-based condition of the measurement configuration information is used by the UE to perform a measurement on the at least one CHO candidate target cell. ¶115 & ¶139-144, Wu further discloses that the measurement may be based upon a measurement-based condition).
Regarding Claim 16, Wu discloses the method according to claim 15.
Wu further discloses wherein the at least one piece of reference point information indicates a position of a neighboring cell (¶32 & Fig. 2 (201), Wu discloses that the location-based condition comprises at least one location of at least one conditional handover (CHO) candidate target cell. Examiner correlates the cell corresponding to the CHO candidate cell to "a neighboring cell").
Regarding Claim 23, Wu discloses a network device, comprising:
a processor (¶197-200 & Fig. 7, Wu discloses a network node including a processor 804); and
a transceiver connected to the processor (¶197-200 & Fig. 7, Wu discloses the network node further includes a transceiver 802 connected to the processor 804);
wherein the processor is configured perform the method according to claim 15 (¶32 & ¶39 & ¶51 & ¶115 & ¶139-144 & Fig. 2, Wu discloses the method of claim 15).
Regarding Claim 24, Wu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having an executable program code stored therein (¶197-200 & Fig. 7, Wu discloses a user equipment (UE) includes at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 706 where the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 706 stores computer-executable instructions), wherein the executable program code, when being loaded and executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the method (¶197-200 & Fig. 7, Wu discloses that the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a processor 708, causes the UE to implement the operations of a method) according to claim 1 (¶32 & ¶39 & ¶51 & ¶115 & ¶139-144 & Fig. 2, Wu discloses the method of claim 1).
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 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 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Yiu et al. (US 20210227442 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yiu”).
Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Wu does not disclose wherein the configuration information is a system message, or a radio resource control RRC release message.
Yiu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the configuration information is a system message, or a radio resource control RRC release message (¶161, Yiu discloses that the measurement report configuration is received by the UE via radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu by requiring that the configuration information is a system message, or a radio resource control RRC release message as taught by Yiu because non-terrestrial network (NTN) handover is improved by enabling a new event trigger based on location to trigger a measurement report (Yiu, ¶24).
Regarding Claim 17, Wu discloses the method according to claim 15.
However, Wu does not disclose wherein the configuration information is a system message, or a radio resource control RRC release message.
Yiu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the configuration information is a system message, or a radio resource control RRC release message (¶161, Yiu discloses that the measurement report configuration is received by the UE via radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu by requiring that the configuration information is a system message, or a radio resource control RRC release message as taught by Yiu because non-terrestrial network (NTN) handover is improved by enabling a new event trigger based on location to trigger a measurement report (Yiu, ¶24).
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Apple (Apple, NTN-TN Idle Mode Mobility, 03 March 2022, 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 #117-e, Agenda Item: 8.10.3.1.1, Tdoc: R2-2202548 (Year: 2022); hereinafter referred to as “Apple”; See PTO-892: Non-Patent Documents: Reference U).
Regarding Claim 13, Wu discloses the method according to claim 1.
Wu further discloses wherein a cell covered by the network device is a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (¶117 & ¶137, Wu discloses that the cell corresponding to the serving cell, or source BS, is a non-terrestrial network (NTN)).
However, Wu does not disclose a cell indicated by the at least one piece of reference point information is a terrestrial network (TN).
Apple, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a cell indicated by the at least one piece of reference point information is a terrestrial network (TN) (Pg. 2, Observation 1, Apple discloses a cell indicated by a reference location is a terrestrial network (TN) cell).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu by requiring that a cell indicated by the at least one piece of reference point information is a terrestrial network (TN) as taught by Apple because the UE power consumption burden in NTN-TN idle mode mobility is significantly reduced by enabling the UE to only look for cells and/or frequencies that may be found (Apple, Pg. 2, Observation 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Wu discloses the method according to claim 15.
Wu further discloses wherein a cell covered by the network device is a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (¶117 & ¶137, Wu discloses that the cell corresponding to the serving cell, or source BS, is a non-terrestrial network (NTN)).
However, Wu does not disclose a cell indicated by the at least one piece of reference point information is a terrestrial network (TN).
Apple, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a cell indicated by the at least one piece of reference point information is a terrestrial network (TN) (Pg. 2, Observation 1, Apple discloses a cell indicated by a reference location is a terrestrial network (TN) cell).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu by requiring that a cell indicated by the at least one piece of reference point information is a terrestrial network (TN) as taught by Apple because the UE power consumption burden in NTN-TN idle mode mobility is significantly reduced by enabling the UE to only look for cells and/or frequencies that may be found (Apple, Pg. 2, Observation 1).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights