DETAILED ACTION
Claims 13-23 are pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under US PRO 63/394639 filed on 8/3/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 16, 18, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wegmann WO 2015/036017 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, Wegmann discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment from a serving cell, information on candidate cells (Wegmann [0033] – each MS in the original cell may receive an updated list of measurement objects, which may be a list of neighbor cells that the MS should measure their reference signals, and then report back the signal measurements; [0034] – At 316, the BS sends to each of the MSs connected to the BS 312 a measurement configuration message);
receiving, by the user equipment from the serving cell, a cell switch command including information related to a target cell among the candidate cells (Wegmann [0039] – To instruct each MS of the group of MSs to perform the synchronized handover to the new cell, at 322, the BS 312 sends a separate handover command to each MS instructing the MS to perform handover to the new/target cell at a specific time. The handover (HO) command may be, for example, a RRCConnectionReconfiguration message including a mobilitycontrollnfo information element (which may include, e.g., a PCI for the target/new cell … one or more other fields, such as a uplink (UL) and/or downlink (DL) resource grant for the new cell, a time offset value (e.g., timing advance) for the MS in the new cell, and a switch time indicator (e.g., TTI)); and
determining, by the user equipment, that a cell switch procedure is triggered based on the cell switch command being received (Wegmann [0039] – one or more other fields, such as a uplink (UL) and/or downlink (DL) resource grant for the new cell, a time offset value (e.g., timing advance) for the MS in the new cell, and a switch time indicator (e.g., TTI)),
wherein, based on the cell switch command including a valid timing advance (TA) value related to the target cell, a random access procedure for the cell switch procedure is skipped (Wegmann [0040] – the presence of the time offset value/timing advance in the handover command may inform the MS 310 that the handover to the new/target cell is to be a random access-free handover (not a standard handover that would involve performing the random access procedure).
Regarding Claim 16, Wegmann discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the cell switch command includes an identifier of the target cell (Wegmann [0039] – To instruct each MS of the group of MSs to perform the synchronized handover to the new cell, at 322, the BS 312 sends a separate handover command to each MS instructing the MS to perform handover to the new/target cell at a specific time. The handover (HO) command may be, for example, a RRCConnectionReconfiguration message including a mobilitycontrollnfo information element (which may include, e.g., a PCI for the target/new cell, and a temporary network identifier (e.g., C-RNTI) for the MS in the new cell), and one or more other fields, such as a uplink (UL) and/or downlink (DL) resource grant for the new cell, a time offset value (e.g., timing advance) for the MS in the new cell, and a switch time indicator (e.g., TTI)).
With regard to claim 18, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 13 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 13 is applied to claim 18.
With regard to claim 21, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 16 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 16 is applied to claim 21.
With regard to claim 23, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 13 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 13 is applied to claim 23.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegmann, in view of Tao et al US 2022/0345961 A1.
Regarding Claim 14, Wegmann discloses the method of claim 13, as outlined above.
However, Wegmann does not teach based on the cell switch command not including the valid TA value related to the target cell, the random access procedure for the cell switch procedure is performed
Tao teaches based on the cell switch command not including the valid TA value related to the target cell, the random access procedure for the cell switch procedure is performed (Tao Fig.22, [0200]-[2001] – As apparent from FIG. 22, and in line with what was already described in connection with FIG. 21, the source base station then proceeds with the handover by transmitting a handover command message to the UE and the UE switching its connection to the target cell…Moreover, the improved handover procedure may exemplarily also include a further step of the UE determining whether to perform the improved handover procedure or another type of handover (such as the legacy handover procedure of FIG. 15). This may, e.g., be implemented in a similar manner as explained for the RACH-less handover procedure of FIG. 16, namely based on the content of the handover command message. For instance, the UE determines to perform the improved handover procedure when the handover command message includes one or more of the UL grant and the common TA value. On the other hand, the UE may determine to perform a legacy handover procedure (see FIG. 15) when the handover command message does neither include the UL grant nor the common TA value).
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 which the claimed invention pertains to modify Wegmann to have, based on the cell switch command not including the valid TA value related to the target cell, the random access procedure for the cell switch procedure is performed, as taught by Tao. One would be motivated as the command for a cell switch procedure requires the system to sync without an explicit TA.
With regard to claim 19, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 14 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 14 is applied to claim 19.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegmann, in view of Reial et al, US 2020/0053621 A1.
Regarding Claim 15, Wegmann discloses the method of claim 13, as outlined above.
However, Wegmann does not teach valid TA value comprises an Absolute TA value.
Reial teaches the valid TA value comprises an Absolute TA value (Reial [0041] – the network node 120/122/140 may determine movement status of the wireless communication device 130 based on timing advance estimates of the wireless communication device 130 with regard to one or more network access nodes. The movement status may be determined e.g. by comparing subsequent timing advance estimates and detecting changes in absolute timing advance values or timing advance differences for the one or more network access nodes).
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 which the claimed invention pertains to modify Wegmann to an absolute TA value, as taught by Reial. One would be motivated as an absolute TA value can assist a system in to establish a connection(s) in the network.
With regard to claim 20, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 15 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 15 is applied to claim 20.
Claim(s) 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegmann, in view of Viering et al, US 2022/0191748 A1.
Regarding Claim 17, Wegmann discloses the method of claim 13, as outlined above.
However, Wegmann does not teach the serving cell and the target cell belong to a same radio resource control (RRC) entity
Viering teaches the serving cell and the target cell belong to a same radio resource control (RRC) entity (Viering [0030] – wherein the serving cell and the target cell belong to a same radio resource control (RRC) entity; [0031] – As illustrated at 114 and 116, the UE may send an RRC reconfiguration complete message to both the first cell and the second cell, which may increase a reliability of certain embodiments described herein. As illustrated at 118 and 120, the second cell, as the new serving cell, may send scheduling information to the UE).
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 which the claimed invention pertains to modify Wegmann to have the serving cell and the target cell belong to a same RRC entity, as taught by Viering. One would be motivated as the RRC manages the radio connection between the cells.
With regard to claim 22, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 17 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 17 is applied to claim 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights