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 .
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)(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 1-7, 9-15, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deenoo et al. (Patent No: US 2022/0394583 A1), hereinafter, Deenoo.
Regarding Claim 1, Deenoo teaches,
A method for configuring mobility management, performed by a network device, comprising: sending configuration information of condition-triggered cell management and a type of the condition-triggered cell management to a terminal device. -Paragraph [0003, 0073] ([0003] recites, “A WTRU as described herein may receive a radio resource control (RRC) message from a network entity, where the RRC message may indicate a conditional reconfiguration to be applied by the WTRU and a condition (e.g., a measurement condition) for application of the conditional reconfiguration. The conditional reconfiguration may be associated with a primary secondary cell (PSCell) change, a PSCell addition, a secondary cell group (SCG) change, an SCG addition, etc.” [0073] recites, “A WTRU may be configured to perform mobility related operations in a multi-connectivity scenario. The description provided herein relating to a conditional handover (CHO) may be at least partially applicable to a conditional reconfiguration, and vice versa. Similarly, the description relating to a conditional PSCell addition and/or change (CPAC) may be at least partially applicable to a conditional PS cell change (CPC), and vice versa. Examples of CPAC may include performing a reconfiguration associated with a secondary cell group if a preconfigured execution condition or trigger is satisfied. Such an execution condition and/or trigger may be preconfigured, for example, by a network entity via higher layer signaling. Examples provided herein with reference to a master node (MN) may be at least partially applicable to a master cell group (MCG), and vice versa. Examples provided herein with reference to a secondary node (SN) may be at least partially applicable to a secondary cell group (SCG), and vice versa.” As explained above network entity sends configuration information to the WTRU (terminal) for conditional cell management including the condition to trigger and which type (e.g., MCG/SCG type on which the condition applies to) via higher layer signaling)
Regarding Claim 2, Deenoo teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Deenoo further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the type of the condition-triggered cell management comprises at least one of: master cell group (MCG) mobility management; secondary cell group (SCG) mobility management; MCG and SCG mobility management; MCG mobility management, and MCG and SCG mobility management; SCG mobility management, and MCG and SCG mobility management; or MCG mobility management, SCG mobility management, and MCG and SCG mobility management. -Paragraph [0075] ([0075] recites, “A WTRU may be configured with (e.g., the WTRU may receive) one or more multi-connectivity conditional reconfigurations, e.g., where at least one reconfiguration may be associated with an MCG and at least one reconfiguration may be associated with an SCG. A WTRU may be configured with a plurality of conditional reconfigurations where a first subset of the conditional reconfigurations may be associated with a master cell group and a second subset of (e.g., the remaining) the conditional reconfigurations may be associated with a secondary cell group. A WTRU may be configured with a plurality of conditional reconfigurations where the plurality of conditional reconfigurations may correspond to a master cell group and a secondary cell group. The WTRU may apply an MCG reconfiguration and/or an SCG reconfiguration if a trigger condition (e.g., a trigger condition associated with a conditional reconfiguration) is satisfied. A WTRU may be configured with a plurality of conditional reconfigurations where one or more conditional reconfigurations associated with a secondary cell group may be linked to a conditional reconfiguration of a master cell group. The WTRU may apply a conditional reconfiguration associated with the master cell group if a first trigger condition is satisfied. The WTRU may apply the conditional reconfiguration associated with the secondary cell group that is linked to a currently activated master cell group if a second trigger condition is satisfied.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Deenoo teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Deenoo further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration information of the condition-triggered cell management comprises at least one of: a mobility management trigger event; -Paragraph [0094, 0117] ([0094] recites, “A WTRU may be configured with one or more trigger conditions for a secondary cell group configuration or reconfiguration. The WTRU may be configured to apply a reconfiguration associated with a secondary cell group if one or a combination of the trigger conditions described herein are satisfied. For example, the WTRU may be configured to apply a SCG reconfiguration if a measurement-based condition is satisfied. The measurement-based condition may correspond to cell quality measurement like RSRP, RSRQ, or SINR. The measurement-based condition may be configured as a measurement event (e.g., Ax, Bx or the like), for example, with one or more appropriate thresholds. The WTRU may apply a SCG reconfiguration if the measurement-based condition and one or more of the following triggering conditions are satisfied.”[0117] recites, “The trigger may include a mobility event at the MCG and/or SCG (e.g., a HO, conditional HO, SCG change, or conditional SCG change). The trigger may be that a measurement report is triggered based on other measurement related triggers associated with the MCG and/or SCG. For example, a WTRU may report a pending beam failure indication based on a measurement event configured at the WTRU that is related to the quality of a cell in the MCG and/or SCG”)
a target cell configuration; or an association relation between a mobility management trigger event and a target cell configuration -Paragraph [0155] ([0155] recites, “A WTRU may be configured to transmit (e.g., in an RRC complete message such as an RRCReconfigurationComplete message) an indication of a CPAC execution trigger condition being satisfied……. For example, the WTRU may send the indication to the CHO target if the WTRU has completed synchronization with the CHO target, if the WTRU has applied the CHO target cell configuration, etc.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Deenoo teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
Deenoo further teaches,
The method of claim 3, the target cell configuration comprises at least one of: target cell configuration information for MCG mobility management; target cell configuration information for SCG mobility management; target cell configuration information for MCG and SCG mobility management; target cell configuration information for MCG mobility management, and MCG and SCG mobility management; target cell configuration information for SCG mobility management, and MCG and SCG mobility management; or target cell configuration information for MCG mobility management. SCG mobility management, and MCG and SCG mobility management. -Paragraph [0072] ([0072] recites, “The WTRU may be configured to perform network-controlled mobility operations for an MCG and conditional mobility operations for an SCG. The WTRU may be configured to perform network-controlled mobility operations for an SCG and conditional mobility operations for an MCG. The WTRU may be configured to perform conditional mobility operations for both an MCG and an SCG. “)
Regarding Claim 5, Deenoo teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
Deenoo further teaches,
The method of claim 4, wherein the target cell configuration information for MCG mobility management and the target cell configuration information for SCG mobility management are contained respectively in different messages; or the target cell configuration information for MCG mobility management and the target cell configuration information for SCG mobility management are contained in the same message. -Paragraph [0003, 0069, 0088] ([0003] recites, “A WTRU as described herein may receive a radio resource control (RRC) message from a network entity, where the RRC message may indicate a conditional reconfiguration to be applied by the WTRU and a condition (e.g., a measurement condition) for application of the conditional reconfiguration. The conditional reconfiguration may be associated with a primary secondary cell (PSCell) change, a PSCell addition, a secondary cell group (SCG) change, an SCG addition, etc. The RRC message may indicate a plurality of candidate PSCells associated with the conditional reconfiguration.”[0069] recites, “The WTRU may be configured to receive and process a radio resource control (RRC) message such as an RRC reconfiguration message via the MCG. The RRC message (e.g., the RRC reconfiguration message) may be associated with (e.g., include information for) SCG addition, SCG change or modification, and/or SCG release.” [0088] recites, “…The WTRU may consider an SCG to be linked to an MCG, for example, if the SCG and MCG are included (e.g., are configured) in a same RRC Reconfiguration message. Linkage may be explicit or implied, for example, by inclusion of a masterCellGroup configuration and a secondaryCellGroup configuration in an RRCReconfiguration message.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Deenoo teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
Deenoo further teaches,
The method of claim 3, wherein the mobility management trigger event comprises at least one of: a trigger event for MCG mobility management; a trigger event for SCG mobility management; a trigger event for MCG and SCG mobility management; a trigger event for MCG mobility management, and MCG and SCG mobility management; a trigger event for SCG mobility management, and IMCG and SCG mobility management; or a trigger event for MCG mobility management, SCG mobility management, and MCG and SCG mobility management. -Paragraph [0117] ([0117] recites, “The trigger may include a mobility event at the MCG and/or SCG (e.g., a HO, conditional HO, SCG change, or conditional SCG change). “)
Regarding Claim 7, Deenoo teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
Deenoo further teaches,
The method of claim 6, wherein the trigger event, for MCG and SCG mobility management comprises any one of: a trigger event for assessing an MCG mobility; a trigger event for assessing an SCG mobility; or a plurality of trigger events for assessing an MCG mobility and for assessing an SCG mobility assessment, respectively. -Paragraph [0117] ([0117] recites, “The trigger may include a mobility event at the MCG and/or SCG (e.g., a HO, conditional HO, SCG change, or conditional SCG change). “ As explained above trigger conditions including HO, conditional HO, SCG change etc. all of the conditions are related to MCG/SCG mobility assessments.)
Claim 9 is essentially same as Claim 1 viewed from terminal side (e.g., receiving configuration information) instead of viewed from network side (e.g., sending configuration information) as in Claim 1.The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1 above which is rejected. Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim 10 is essentially same as Claim 2 with the only difference is Claim 10 is dependent claim of independent Claim 9, whereas, Claim 2 is dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 2 above which is rejected. Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 2.
Claim 11 is essentially same as Claim 3 with the only difference is Claim 11 is dependent claim of independent Claim 9, whereas, Claim 3 is dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 3 above which is rejected. Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 3.
Claim 12 is essentially same as Claim 4 with the only difference is Claim 12 is dependent claim of Claim 11, whereas, Claim 4 is dependent claim of claim 3. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 4 above which is rejected. Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 4.
Claim 13 is essentially same as Claim 5 with the only difference is Claim 13 is dependent claim of Claim 12, whereas, Claim 5 is dependent claim of claim 4. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 5 above which is rejected. Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 5.
Claim 14 is essentially same as Claim 6 with the only difference is Claim 14 is dependent claim of Claim 11, whereas, Claim 6 is dependent claim of claim 3. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 6 above which is rejected. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 6.
Claim 15 is essentially same as Claim 7 with the only difference is Claim 15 is dependent claim of Claim 14, whereas, Claim 7 is dependent claim of claim 6. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 7 above which is rejected. Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 7.
Claim 35 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 1 above which is rejected. Claim 35 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Deenoo further teaches,
A communication apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor. -Fig. 1B
Claim 36 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 1 above which is rejected. Claim 35 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Deenoo further teaches,
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to perform the method of claim 1. -Paragraph [0200] ([0200] recites, “the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of computer-readable media include electronic signals (transmitted over wired or wireless connections) and computer-readable storage media. “)
Claim 37 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 9. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 9 above which is rejected. Claim 37 is rejected under the same rational as claim 9.
Deenoo further teaches,
A communication apparatus comprising:a processor; anda memory storing instructions executable by the processor; -Paragraph [0200] ([0200] recites, “ Although features and elements are described above in particular combinations, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that each feature or element can be used alone or in any combination with the other features and elements. In addition, the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of computer-readable media include electronic signals (transmitted over wired or wireless connections) and computer-readable storage media.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deenoo
in view of Soenghun Kim (Patent No: US 2023/0052739 A1), hereinafter, Kim.
Regarding Claim 8, Deenoo teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
Although implicit, Deenoo does not explicitly mention,
The method of claim 3, wherein there are one or more mobility management trigger events associated with the target cell configuration.
However, in an analogous invention, Kim teaches,
The method of claim 3, wherein there are one or more mobility management trigger events associated with the target cell configuration. -Paragraph [0151] ([0151] recites, “In 926, UE performs conditional reconfiguration evaluation. For each 2.sup.nd information included in 1.sup.st information, UE considers the serving cell indicated in 3.sup.rd NR RECNF of 2.sup.nd information (i.e. target candidate cell) as applicable cell. UE consider the target candidate cell as a triggered cell if event associated with the trigger condition for the cell is fulfilled.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “CONDITIONAL MOBILITY WITH MULTI-CONNECTIVITY
” proposed by Deenoo to include the concept of “one or more mobility management trigger events associated with the target cell configuration” of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently providing the configuration information for conditional secondary node change [0004].
Claim 16 is essentially same as Claim 8 with the only difference is Claim 16 is dependent claim of Claim 11, whereas, Claim 8 is dependent claim of claim 3. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 8 above which is rejected. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 3.
Regarding 17, Deenoo and Kim combination teach the limitations of Claim 16.
Deenoo further teaches,
The method of claim 16, further comprising: in response to any mobility management trigger event associated with the target cell configuration being triggered, executing the target cell configuration; -Paragraph [0152] ([0152] recites, “The WTRU may disable one or more CPAC actions. For example, the WTRU may be configured to disable one or more actions related to CPAC in response to determining that a CHO trigger is about to occur (e.g., based on the WTRU's evaluation of one or more CHO trigger conditions). The WTRU may be configured to disable one or more CPAC actions based on a preconfigured trigger condition. In examples, the preconfigured trigger condition may be a measurement event that is associated with a CHO trigger condition. “
or in response to a plurality of mobility management trigger events, associated with the target cell configuration being triggered, executing the target cell configuration. -Fig. 3; Paragraph [0188] ([0188] recites, “An SCG may be added for a WTRU. FIG. 3 illustrates an example of applying an SCG configuration if a condition is satisfied. A WTRU may be in a connected state with a source MCG. The WTRU may receive a message (e.g., a RRCReconfiguration or RRCConnectionReconfig message) from the MCG (e.g., a MN associated with the MCG) that includes or indicates an SCG configuration, an SCG reconfiguration, and/or a trigger condition for performing the SCG configuration or reconfiguration (e.g., the SCG configuration or reconfiguration may be conditional)…..If the trigger condition is satisfied (e.g., at a later point in time), the WTRU may transmit a second message (e.g., an RRC response such as RRC Response 2 in FIG. 3) to the MN. The WTRU may indicate in the second message (e.g., RRC response 2) that the trigger condition for application of the conditional SCG configuration or reconfiguration is satisfied. The WTRU may apply the SCG configuration or reconfiguration in response to determining that the trigger condition is satisfied.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights