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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 6/17/2026.
Telephone Election
The requirement for Unity of Invention is based on the claims received on 6/17/2025. During a telephone conversation with Mr. Kevin Dudney, Reg. No. 79,834, on 6/2/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, formed by claims 1-10, 27. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 21-26 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Furthermore, claims 21-26 were canceled in the preliminary amendment of 6/17/2026.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475(c).
Restriction Requirement in National Stage Applications Submitted Under 35 U.S.C. 371
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group Descriptions - The requirement for Unity of Invention is based on the claims received on 6/17/2025:
Group Comparison Table
Group I
Group II
Claims 1-10, 27, directed to par. 79 of the specification in reference to Fig. 9, classified as H04W 36/00837. Description:
A mobile device which (par. 79 of the specification): 1. Checks whether a conditional handover trigger condition, is met; and 2. Only if the trigger condition is met, checks whether a handover execution condition is met.
Claims 21-26, 28-30, directed to par. 83-87 of the specification in reference to Fig. 8 steps 802, 804, classified as H04W 36/0007. Description:
A cellular base station which: 1. Establishes a link, and 2. Broadcasts one single handover execution condition that triggers a handover to one or more candidate cells.
Group I is based on Fig. 9, because the claims were amended by removing the step of "establishing" the link. Likewise, Fig. 9 also omits the step of establishing a communications link:
PNG
media_image1.png
454
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 steps 802, 804:
PNG
media_image2.png
267
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim limitations, highlighting differences between the groups (the preamble does not have patentable weight):
1. A method, comprising:
communicating via a non-terrestrial network (NTN) based wireless link with a cellular base station;
receiving conditional handover information in broadcast system information, wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions "for" one or more candidate cells;
evaluating the one or more conditional handover trigger conditions to determine whether conditional handover is triggered for the one or more candidate cells; and
performing handover to a candidate cell when conditional handover to the candidate cell is triggered.
Claim limitations, highlighting differences between the groups (the preamble does not have patentable weight):
21. (New) A method, comprising:
by a cellular base station:
establishing a non-terrestrial network (NTN) based wireless link with a wireless device; and
providing conditional handover information in broadcast system information, wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions that trigger handover to one or more candidate cells.
Lack of Unity - Reasons Why Inventions Lack Unity
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Each group lacks unity with the remaining groups, because each group requires features which are not required by the remaining groups, as demonstrated in the group comparison table. Therefore, there is no single general inventive concept.
Shared Technical Feature Does Not Make a Contribution Over the Prior Art
Groups I, II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “a non-terrestrial network (NTN) based wireless link with a wireless device; and providing conditional handover information in broadcast system information, wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions”. This technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Fehrenbach et al (Publication Number 2022/0078684), hereinafter Fehrenbach:
Fehrenbach teaches a non-terrestrial network (NTN) based wireless link with a wireless device (Fehrenbach [0003] A non-terrestrial network provides wide area coverage to stationary or moving devices. A LEO satellite provides coverage for a certain area until a handover to the next moving satellite happens.); and providing conditional handover information in broadcast system information, wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions (Fehrenbach Fig. 2 step 140 and [0103] The source node 310 provides, in step 140, the UE 110 with CHO configuration data. The CHO configuration data comprises trigger criteria or trigger conditions or conditions and respective RRC reconfiguration data of a potential target node 120.).
An argument frequently seen is that treatment of Unity of Invention at the National Stage would be bound by the action issued by the International Search Authority; however, that argument is not correct, and is not supported by the MPEP. A lack of unity action may be made at the National Stage, even when no such indication was made during the international phase; please refer to MPEP 1893.03(d) and 37 C.F.R. 1.499 “Unity of invention during the national stage”: If the examiner finds that a national stage application lacks unity of invention under § 1.475, the examiner may in an Office action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect the invention to which the claims shall be restricted. Such requirement may be made before any action on the merits but may be made at any time before the final action at the discretion of the examiner. Review of any such requirement is provided under §§ 1.143 and 1.144.
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 1-10, 27-36 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.
MPEP 2173.04 “Breadth is Not Indefiniteness” explains that a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim). In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness."). In this case, independent claim 1 recites: “performing handover to a candidate cell when conditional handover to the candidate cell is triggered”. This “genus” excerpt from the claim covers at least the following “species”:
1. "Performing handover to a candidate cell when conditional handover to the candidate cell is triggered, wherein the conditional handover comprises the same event as the handover". The specification enables this embodiment in [0092] "In 948, the source gNB 904, UE 902, and target gNB 906 may perform CHO handover completion. In 950, the target gNB 906 may indicate to the source gNB 904 that handover is successful" – in this embodiment, the conditional handover completion is the same event as the handover completion.
2. "Performing handover to a candidate cell when conditional handover to the candidate cell is triggered, wherein the conditional handover is an event which occurs separately from the handover". The specification enables this embodiment in [0061] "Accordingly, in some instances, conditional handover may be used, e.g., to reduce reliance on in-time RRC signaling with the source cell at the time of handover, which may make the handover more reliable. Conditional handover may include attempting to pre-deliver handover commands for a cell in advance, e.g., while conditions are good (e.g., when the device is stationary and/or has good signal quality), and allowing the device to handover later." – in this embodiment, "conditional handover" is an operation which consists of pre-delivering commands to a mobile device while signal has good quality, in case the quality gets worse later on when it may be more difficult to exchange control signals with the mobile device.
3. "Performing handover to a candidate cell when conditional handover to the candidate cell is triggered, wherein the conditional handover is a configuration in the UE". The specification enables this embodiment in [0075] "The conditional handover information may include an indication (e.g., potentially for each candidate cell for which conditional handover is configured) of whether the RRC configuration for conditional handover from the source cell to a target cell is substantially similar." See also [0092] "In 936, the source gNB 904 may provide a RRC reconfiguration message to the UE 902, which may include CHO configuration information. In 938, the UE 902 may provide a RRC reconfiguration complete message to the source gNB 904". – in these embodiments, "conditional handover" is a configuration inside the UE.
Because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim, the genus claim can be interpreted in more than one way, and the above-demonstrated ambiguity makes unclear which species is covered, rendering the claims indefinite. The remaining independent claims, and the dependent claims, incorporate the limitations of claim 1, and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons above. In order to overcome indefiniteness, the Examiner recommends amending the claims as in one of the options above, which would NOT create a new matter issue, because all the alternatives are supported in the specification and drawings. For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as "1 or 2 ore 3", i.e., the handover and the conditional handover may comprise the same event, different events, or cho may be a type of configuration.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Guo et al (international publication number WO 2022087118), hereinafter Guo, teaches a method to configure a UE for group handover in a 5G NR network with non-terrestrial access and to cause the UE to perform operations comprising encoding a measurement report for transmission to a base station via a satellite node of the 5G NR network. RRC signaling broadcast in the 5G NR network in response to the measurement report is decoded. The RRC signaling originates from a base station and is received via a broadcast transmission of the satellite node. The RRC signaling includes configuration information for a conditional handover. An evaluation of one or more conditions specified by the configuration information is performed for the conditional handover. The conditional handover from a current cell to a new cell of the 5G NR network is performed based on the evaluation.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Test for Obviousness
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-5, 9-10, 27-33, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al (publication number 2022/0217591), hereinafter Meng, and further in view of Fehrenbach et al (Publication Number 2022/0078684), hereinafter Fehrenbach.
Meng uses the following terminology and acronyms:
[0059] A terminal is also referred to as user equipment (user equipment, UE), a mobile station (mobile station, MS), a mobile terminal (mobile terminal, MT), or the like, and is a device that provides voice and/or data connectivity for a user. The terminal device may be a mobile phone (mobile phone), a tablet, a notebook.
[0061] The satellite, also referred to as a satellite base station, is located in the satellite communication system and can provide a radio access service for a terminal that is in coverage corresponding to the satellite.
[0065] Coverage of a cell (cell) is all or a part of coverage of a base station/satellite base station. Usually, coverage of one or more beams is understood as coverage of a cell.
Regarding claim 1, Meng teaches a method (please refer to method represented in Meng Fig. 2), comprising:
communicating via a non-terrestrial network (NTN, Meng [0060] A network device can provide a connection service for a satellite. The network device may have a satellite gateway function in a communication system, for example, a ground station device or a non-terrestrial network gateway / NTN Gateway / satellite gateway) based wireless link with a cellular base station (Meng [0061] and Fig. 2 steps 1 and 2 where the terminal communicates with the satellite base station);
receiving conditional handover information (Meng Fig. 2 and [0084] Step 4: The satellite sends handover assistance information to the terminal), wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions for one or more candidate cells (Meng Fig. 2 step 4 and [0084], [0085]: The HO assistance info includes the second threshold of the candidate cell, and the second threshold is used as a trigger threshold for conditional handover. For example, the second threshold may include a reference signal received power, RSRP, threshold of the candidate cell 1 and an RSRP threshold of the candidate cell 2);
evaluating the one or more conditional handover trigger conditions to determine whether conditional handover is triggered for the one or more candidate cells (Meng [0086] Step 5: The terminal performs evaluation of the condition for the candidate cells, and selects a target cell from the candidate cells. [0090] In a conditional handover process, once the terminal meets the trigger condition - for example, the second threshold in FIG. 2 - for conditional handover, the terminal can be directly handed over to the target cell); and
performing handover to a candidate cell when conditional handover to the candidate cell is triggered (Meng [0090] In a conditional handover process, once the terminal meets the trigger condition - for example, the second threshold in FIG. 2 - for conditional handover, the terminal can be directly handed over to the target cell).
Meng does not explicitly teach "in broadcast system information".
Fehrenbach teaches receiving conditional handover information in broadcast system information (Fehrenbach Fig. 10 and [0246] Instead of configuring all the UEs individually, the CHO configuration data is provided by RRC broadcast signaling via a System Information Block (SIB). Every UE that is active has to read the SIB and therefore also reads and knows the CHO configuration, or the broadcasted first portion of the CHO configuration data), wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions for one or more candidate cells (Fehrenbach Fig. 10 and [0242] The UE 110 receives configuration data or configuration updates from the cellular network 140. The configuration data comprises multiple trigger conditions and handover configuration data. As one or more of the trigger conditions are met, the UE 110 performs an i-th CHO with the i-th target 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 modify the disclosure of Meng, by incorporating the teachings of Fehrenbach into the disclosure of Meng, in order to improve the mobility robustness of the handover procedure, avoiding radio link failures (RLFs) due to, for example, a late measurement report that may not reach the network or, even when measurement reports are received, the handover command does not reach the UE before RLF happens and UE starts the re-establishment procedure. Also, because there is a need for further enhancements in the mobility robustness in a cellular network (Fehrenbach [0004] - [0008]).
Regarding claims 2, 28, Meng does not explicitly teach "wherein the conditional handover information includes an indication of whether radio resource control (RRC) configurations for conditional handover from a source cell to a target cell are substantially similar".
Fehrenbach teaches wherein the conditional handover information includes an indication of whether radio resource control (RRC) configurations for conditional handover from a source cell to a target cell are substantially similar (Fehrenbach Fig. 11 and [0247] FIG. 11 shows a configuration data 1100 of a set of UEs with known mobility path. The configuration data 1100 comprises a first portion 1130 with a set of common parameters 1130 and a second portion with a set of individual parameters 1150 – so, the first portion has an indication which is numeral 1130. Fehrenbach [0307] The user equipment 110 is configured to check whether the first portion 1130 of the configuration data 1100 comprises [0308] Physical cell identities relating to the candidate target cells and/or [0309] Target cell configuration parameters, e.g. frequency or carrier bandwidth, and/or [0310] RACH preambles… [0317] Physical location of the target cell. – Therefore, the information listed above PCI, config parameters, etc. indicates to the UE that these configurations are the ones being broadcast to all the UE's. [0246] The first portion of the data 1130 is provided by RRC broadcast signaling via a System Information Block (SIB)).
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 modify the disclosure of Meng, by incorporating the teachings of Fehrenbach into the disclosure of Meng, in order to improve the mobility robustness of the handover procedure, avoiding radio link failures (RLFs) due to, for example, a late measurement report that may not reach the network or, even when measurement reports are received, the handover command does not reach the UE before RLF happens and UE starts the re-establishment procedure. Also, because there is a need for further enhancements in the mobility robustness in a cellular network (Fehrenbach [0004] - [0008]).
Regarding claims 3, 32, Meng does not explicitly teach "wherein the conditional handover information further includes delta information indicating differences between RRC configurations for conditional handover from the source cell to the target cell".
Fehrenbach teaches wherein the conditional handover information further includes delta information indicating differences between RRC configurations for conditional handover from the source cell to the target cell (Fehrenbach Fig. 3 and [0143] The configuration update data 325 may comprise a new version or only a changed portion or a delta portion of the configuration data 1100. [0160] After a successful CHO execution, in order to save signaling, the new serving cell provides a delta or a changed portion, signaling only configuration entries that were changed).
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 modify the disclosure of Meng, by incorporating the teachings of Fehrenbach into the disclosure of Meng, in order to improve the mobility robustness of the handover procedure, avoiding radio link failures (RLFs) due to, for example, a late measurement report that may not reach the network or, even when measurement reports are received, the handover command does not reach the UE before RLF happens and UE starts the re-establishment procedure. Also, because there is a need for further enhancements in the mobility robustness in a cellular network (Fehrenbach [0004] - [0008]) and in order to save signaling (Fehrenbach [0160]).
Regarding claims 4, 29, 33, Meng teaches wherein the one or more conditional handover trigger conditions include one or more of:
a time-based triggering condition;
a location-based triggering condition (Meng [0091] The trigger condition for conditional handover is introduced in a satellite communication system. The trigger conditions for conditional handover include, among others, triggering of locations, including a location of the terminal and a location of the satellite); or
a radio resource management (RRM) measurement-based triggering condition.
Regarding claims 5, 30, Meng teaches: determining a location of a wireless device (Meng Fig. 6 and [0110] The random access preamble is used to determine terminal information, and the terminal information is used for cell handover of the terminal. The terminal information includes the following content: location information of the terminal), wherein the one or more conditional handover trigger conditions are evaluated to determine whether conditional handover is triggered for the one or more candidate cells based at least in part on the location of the wireless device (Meng Fig. 6 and [0110] The terminal information is used to help the satellite select a most suitable access cell for the terminal. The terminal information includes the following content: location information of the terminal, an identifier of a cell meeting a trigger condition for conditional handover, and the trigger condition that the cell meeting the trigger condition for conditional handover meets. [0144] Step 606: The terminal accesses the second cell – Therefore, the handover decision was based on evaluating terminal location).
Regarding claim 9, Meng does not explicitly teach "receiving conditional handover information in dedicated signaling; and determining whether to prioritize the conditional handover information received in dedicated signaling or the conditional handover information received in broadcast system information".
Fehrenbach teaches receiving conditional handover information in dedicated signaling (Fehrenbach [0039] Configuration data comprises a first portion and a second portion. The first portion of the configuration data, comprising group specific or common parameters, is received via broadcast or groupcast, in order to save signaling. The second portion of the configuration data, comprising user specific or individual parameters, received via unicast transmission. [0040] The second portion of the configuration data might overwrite the first portion); and determining whether to prioritize the conditional handover information received in dedicated signaling or the conditional handover information received in broadcast system information (Fehrenbach Fig. 11 and [0247] FIG. 11 shows a configuration data 1100 of a set of UEs. The configuration data 1100 comprises a first portion 1130 with a set of common parameters 1130 and a second portion with a set of individual parameters 1150. [0289] In an embodiment the first portion of the configuration data is overwritten by the second portion of the configuration data, this means, that the common parameters can be overwritten by the individual parameters).
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 modify the disclosure of Meng, by incorporating the teachings of Fehrenbach into the disclosure of Meng, in order to improve the mobility robustness of the handover procedure, avoiding radio link failures (RLFs) due to, for example, a late measurement report that may not reach the network or, even when measurement reports are received, the handover command does not reach the UE before RLF happens and UE starts the re-establishment procedure. Also, because there is a need for further enhancements in the mobility robustness in a cellular network (Fehrenbach [0004] - [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, 36, Meng does not explicitly teach "wherein the conditional handover information received in broadcast system information further includes random access channel (RACH) configuration information for conditional handover, wherein the RACH configuration information for conditional handover includes one or more of: a set of preambles configured for use for RACH transmissions for conditional handover; a time duration within which a wireless device is configured to perform random access after a conditional handover is triggered; an indication of which wireless device identity information to use to determine a set of RACH resources available for RACH transmissions for conditional handover; or an indication of RACH opportunities configured for use for RACH transmissions for conditional handover".
Fehrenbach teaches wherein the conditional handover information received in broadcast system information further includes random access channel (RACH) configuration information for conditional handover (Fehrenbach Fig. 11 and [0246] In some cases, when more than one UEs are moving on the same mobility path or on the same expected future route the signaling overhead can be further reduced. Instead of configuring all the UEs individually, for example, the first portion of the CHO configuration data may be provided by RRC broadcast signaling via a System Information Block (SIB)), wherein the RACH configuration information for conditional handover includes one or more of: a set of preambles configured for use for RACH transmissions for conditional handover (Fehrenbach Fig. 11 and [0295] The first portion 1130 of the configuration data 1100 comprises: [0296] Physical cell identities relating to the candidate target cells and/or [0297] Target cell configuration parameters, e.g. frequency or carrier bandwidth, and/or [0298] RACH preambles); a time duration within which a wireless device is configured to perform random access after a conditional handover is triggered; an indication of which wireless device identity information to use to determine a set of RACH resources available for RACH transmissions for conditional handover; or an indication of RACH opportunities configured for use for RACH transmissions for conditional handover.
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 modify the disclosure of Meng, by incorporating the teachings of Fehrenbach into the disclosure of Meng, in order to improve the mobility robustness of the handover procedure, avoiding radio link failures (RLFs) due to, for example, a late measurement report that may not reach the network or, even when measurement reports are received, the handover command does not reach the UE before RLF happens and UE starts the re-establishment procedure. Also, because there is a need for further enhancements in the mobility robustness in a cellular network (Fehrenbach [0004] - [0008]).
Regarding claim 27, Meng teaches an apparatus (please refer to method represented in Meng Fig. 2; claimed apparatus equates to the terminal on the left), comprising:
a processor configured to, when executing instructions stored in a memory (Meng Fig. 11 and [0191] processing unit 1120, storage unit 1130), perform operations (Meng Fig. 11 and [0191] apparatus 110 can perform the steps performed by the terminal in the methods; [0203] The processor 1201 is configured to execute some or all of computer program instructions in the memory to implement the method) comprising:
communicating via a non-terrestrial network (NTN, Meng [0060] A network device can provide a connection service for a satellite. The network device may have a satellite gateway function in a communication system, for example, a ground station device or a non-terrestrial network gateway / NTN Gateway / satellite gateway) based wireless link with a cellular base station (Meng [0061] and Fig. 2 steps 1 and 2 where the terminal communicates with the satellite base station);
receiving conditional handover information (Meng Fig. 2 and [0084] Step 4: The satellite sends handover assistance information to the terminal), wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions for one or more candidate cells (Meng Fig. 2 step 4 and [0084], [0085]: The HO assistance info includes the second threshold of the candidate cell, and the second threshold is used as a trigger threshold for conditional handover. For example, the second threshold may include a reference signal received power, RSRP, threshold of the candidate cell 1 and an RSRP threshold of the candidate cell 2);
evaluating the one or more conditional handover trigger conditions to determine whether conditional handover is triggered for the one or more candidate cells (Meng [0086] Step 5: The terminal performs evaluation of the condition for the candidate cells, and selects a target cell from the candidate cells. [0090] In a conditional handover process, once the terminal meets the trigger condition - for example, the second threshold in FIG. 2 - for conditional handover, the terminal can be directly handed over to the target cell); and
performing handover to a candidate cell when conditional handover to the candidate cell is triggered (Meng [0090] In a conditional handover process, once the terminal meets the trigger condition - for example, the second threshold in FIG. 2 - for conditional handover, the terminal can be directly handed over to the target cell).
Meng does not explicitly teach "in broadcast system information".
Fehrenbach teaches receiving conditional handover information in broadcast system information (Fehrenbach Fig. 10 and [0246] Instead of configuring all the UEs individually, the CHO configuration data is provided by RRC broadcast signaling via a System Information Block (SIB). Every UE that is active has to read the SIB and therefore also reads and knows the CHO configuration, or the broadcasted first portion of the CHO configuration data), wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions for one or more candidate cells (Fehrenbach Fig. 10 and [0242] The UE 110 receives configuration data or configuration updates from the cellular network 140. The configuration data comprises multiple trigger conditions and handover configuration data. As one or more of the trigger conditions are met, the UE 110 performs an i-th CHO with the i-th target 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 modify the disclosure of Meng, by incorporating the teachings of Fehrenbach into the disclosure of Meng, in order to improve the mobility robustness of the handover procedure, avoiding radio link failures (RLFs) due to, for example, a late measurement report that may not reach the network or, even when measurement reports are received, the handover command does not reach the UE before RLF happens and UE starts the re-establishment procedure. Also, because there is a need for further enhancements in the mobility robustness in a cellular network (Fehrenbach [0004] - [0008]).
Regarding claim 31, Meng teaches a method (please refer to method represented in Meng Fig. 2), comprising:
by a cellular network (Meng [0074] In a cellular system, a mechanism in which a terminal performs cell handover):
communicating via a non-terrestrial network (NTN, Meng [0060] A network device can provide a connection service for a satellite. The network device may have a satellite gateway function in a communication system, for example, a ground station device or a non-terrestrial network gateway / NTN Gateway / satellite gateway) based wireless link with a wireless device (Meng [0061] and Fig. 2 steps 1 and 2 where the terminal communicates with the satellite base station);
transmitting, to the wireless device, conditional handover information (Meng Fig. 2 and [0084] Step 4: The satellite sends handover assistance information to the terminal), wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions for one or more candidate cells (Meng Fig. 2 step 4 and [0084], [0085]: The HO assistance info includes the second threshold of the candidate cell, and the second threshold is used as a trigger threshold for conditional handover. For example, the second threshold may include a reference signal received power, RSRP, threshold of the candidate cell 1 and an RSRP threshold of the candidate cell 2); and
performing handover of the wireless device to a candidate cell when conditional handover to the candidate cell is triggered (Meng [0090] In a conditional handover process, once the terminal meets the trigger condition - for example, the second threshold in FIG. 2 - for conditional handover, the terminal can be directly handed over to the target cell).
Meng does not explicitly teach "in broadcast system information".
Fehrenbach teaches receiving conditional handover information in broadcast system information (Fehrenbach Fig. 10 and [0246] Instead of configuring all the UEs individually, the CHO configuration data is provided by RRC broadcast signaling via a System Information Block (SIB). Every UE that is active has to read the SIB and therefore also reads and knows the CHO configuration, or the broadcasted first portion of the CHO configuration data), wherein the conditional handover information indicates one or more conditional handover trigger conditions for one or more candidate cells (Fehrenbach Fig. 10 and [0242] The UE 110 receives configuration data or configuration updates from the cellular network 140. The configuration data comprises multiple trigger conditions and handover configuration data. As one or more of the trigger conditions are met, the UE 110 performs an i-th CHO with the i-th target 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 modify the disclosure of Meng, by incorporating the teachings of Fehrenbach into the disclosure of Meng, in order to improve the mobility robustness of the handover procedure, avoiding radio link failures (RLFs) due to, for example, a late measurement report that may not reach the network or, even when measurement reports are received, the handover command does not reach the UE before RLF happens and UE starts the re-establishment procedure. Also, because there is a need for further enhancements in the mobility robustness in a cellular network (Fehrenbach [0004] - [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 34-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and rejections set forth in this office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 31, a method claim, is the broadest independent claim. Independent claims 1, 27 incorporate all limitations of independent claim 31.
Regarding claim 6, Fehrenbach teaches a time-based triggering condition, meaning, the satellite base station broadcasts or configures individually a CHO trigger which is based on time; however, Fehrenbach and Meng fall short of a “t-Service” parameter for the NTN based wireless link, wherein the t-Service parameter indicates a time when a serving cell stops serving its current service area; a “D” parameter for the time-based triggering condition, wherein the D parameter indicates a time duration for which the time-based triggering condition is triggered; determining a “T” parameter for the time-based triggering condition, wherein the T parameter indicates a start time at which the time-based triggering condition is triggered, wherein the T parameter is determined as t-Service – D; wherein the time-based triggering condition is triggered between a time T and a time T+D.
Regarding claim 7, Fehrenbach teaches a time-based triggering condition, meaning, the satellite base station broadcasts or configures individually a CHO trigger which is based on time; however, Fehrenbach and Meng fall short of a “t-Service” parameter for the NTN based wireless link, wherein the t-Service parameter indicates a time when a serving cell stops serving its current service area; a “t-Start” parameter for the time-based triggering condition, wherein the t-Start parameter indicates a start time at which the time-based triggering condition is triggered, wherein the time-based triggering condition is triggered between the start time indicated by the t-Start parameter and the time when the serving cell stops serving its current service area indicated by the t-Service parameter.
Regarding claim 8, Fehrenbach teaches receiving broadcast system information containing conditional handover information; Meng teaches and receiving CHO information on demand; however, Fehrenbach and Meng fall short of receiving an indication in broadcast system information that the conditional handover information is available to be broadcast on-demand; and transmitting a request to the cellular base station for the conditional handover information to be broadcast.
Regarding claim 34, Fehrenbach teaches receiving broadcast system information containing conditional handover information; Meng teaches and receiving CHO information on demand; however, Fehrenbach and Meng fall short of transmitting an indication in broadcast system information that the conditional handover information is available to be broadcast on-demand; and receiving a request from the wireless device for the conditional handover information to be broadcast, wherein the conditional handover information is transmitted in the broadcast system information based at least in part on the request for the conditional handover information to be broadcast.
Regarding claim 35, it depends on claim 34 and incorporates all limitations of claim 34, and therefore presents allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 34.
Therefore, in view of their respective base claims, the further limitations of the above-mentioned claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered
The information disclosure statement filed on 6/9/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because: The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 6/9/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a) (4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Effective January 19, 2025, an information disclosure statement (IDS) should contain a clear written assertion by the applicant and patent owner that, either the IDS is accompanied by the appropriate IDS size fee, or that no IDS size fee is required. In accordance with § 1.97(i), an IDS filed in an application without the written assertion or the necessary IDS size fee assertion or the necessary IDS size fee will be placed in the file but not considered. The Applicants may then file a new IDS accompanied by the appropriate written assertion and, if appropriate, the necessary IDS size fee; the date the “replacement” IDS is filed will be the date of the IDS for purposes of determining timing compliance with § 1.97 (e.g. Before First Action, Before Final/Allowance, Before Issue Fee). An authorization to charge fees to a deposit account is not a compliant written assertion under the new § 1.98(a) requirement, unless the authorization clearly identifies the particular IDS size fee that should be charged for submission of a particular charged for submission of a particular IDS. Language such as ‘‘the Director is authorized to charge any applicable IDS size fee to deposit account XX–XXXXX’’ would not be a compliant written assertion because it fails to establish which IDS size fee is due. General authorizations to charge fees to a deposit account are not compliant written assertions under the new § 1.98(a) requirement. A compliant written assertion template can be downloaded here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms For more information, please refer to Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 224: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-11-20/pdf/2024-26821.pdf
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any resubmission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing elements will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights