DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in response to communications filed on 12/26/2024.
Claims 1-4, 7, & 13-19 have been examined and are rejected. Claims 5-6, 8-12 & 20 have been examined and are objected to.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/101447 filed 6/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2024 and 4/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8-12 & 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 16, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 2022/0141725 A1), hereinafter referenced as Pari, in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0308981 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Pari teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: (a wireless device may be a user equipment (UE) and include processing circuitry 620 & device readable medium 630 [Pari: 0183-84]);
receive a configuration regarding first information associated with a successful completion of an inter-radio access technology (RAT) handover (HO) procedure, wherein the configuration is related to at least one trigger condition for the UE; (the UE may receive a configuration for a successful handover report which causes the UE to compile a report associated with successful handovers upon successful handover report triggering conditions being met [Pari: 0087-89; 0253-55], wherein the node may be configured to report the successful HO report in case of inter RAT handover scenarios [Pari: 0149-50]);
and generate at least one report including the first information in response to fulfillment of the at least one trigger condition; (upon a successful handover, the UE checks whether successful handover report triggering conditions is met, compiles a successful handover report, and signals the successful handover report to the target cell [Pari: 0088]).
However, Pari does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
wherein the configuration is related to at least one trigger condition for the UE storing the first information;
In a similar field of endeavor involving sending a handover success report, Liu discloses:
wherein the configuration is related to at least one trigger condition for the UE storing the first information; (a terminal sends a stored report to a target cell [Liu: 0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pari in view of Liu in order to store the first information in the system of Pari.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pari with Liu as doing so would allow the information in the report to be maintained in the event the report is unable to be successfully communicated at the desired time.
With regard to Claim 3, Pari-Liu teaches:
The UE of Claim 1, wherein each report within the at least one report or the first information includes at least one of: information associated with a source cell of a source network node; information associated with a target cell of a target network node; a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) of the source cell; a C-RNTI of the target cell; at least one cause associated with the at least one trigger condition; or information associated with a radio access (RA) operation of the UE; (the successful handover report includes information related to at least one of a source cell and the target cell [Pari: 0256-65]. Liu teaches the handover success report includes at least one of: an Identity (ID) of a source cell [Liu: 0006-13]).
With regard to Claim 13, Pari-Liu teaches:
The UE of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
transmit an indication for indicating generation of the at least one report via the transceiver to a network node connected with the UE after completing the inter-RAT HO procedure; (the UE can flag and/or report to the network the availability of a successful handover report [Pari: 0144-45; 0157]);
receive a request for the at least one report or the first information via the transceiver from the network node; (the UE can receive a RAN request to report the successful handover report via RRC [Pari: 0158; 0089]);
and transmit the at least one report via the transceiver to the network node; (the successful handover report may be transmitted to the target cell in response to the received request [Pari: 0089]).
With regard to Claims 16 & 18, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1 & 3 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 16 & 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 3.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 14-15, 17, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 2022/0141725 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0308981 A1) as applied to Claims 1 & 16 above and further in view of Geng et al. (US 2023/0035795 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Pari-Liu teaches:
The UE of Claim 1, wherein the at least one trigger condition includes two or more trigger conditions; (the network node transmits to wireless device a configuration for the successful handover report that may include at least one successful handover triggering condition, wherein the wireless device determines whether at least one successful handover report trigger condition has been met [Pari: 0284; Claim 42]).
However, Pari-Liu does not teach:
and wherein, to generate the at least one report in response to fulfillment of the two or more trigger conditions, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: generate two or more reports including the first information; or generate only one report including the first information.
In a similar field of endeavor involving generating a successful SN/MN mobility report in a handover scenario [0278], Geng discloses:
and wherein, to generate the at least one report in response to fulfillment of the two or more trigger conditions, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: generate two or more reports including the first information; or generate only one report including the first information; (receiving first indication information that indicates configuration information comprising one or more triggers for the terminal device to record the mobility report in the event some or all of the triggers are met [Geng: 0027; 0179-81; 0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pari-Liu in view of Geng in order to generate a report in response to fulfillment of the two or more trigger conditions in the system of Pari-Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pari-Liu with Geng as doing so would make handover reporting more selective, thereby reducing energy consumption of the terminal device caused by recording a mobility report in any scenario by the terminal device and signaling overheads for subsequently transmitting the report [Geng: 0012].
With regard to Claim 4, Pari-Liu-Geng teaches:
The UE of Claim 2, wherein one report within the two or more reports is associated with one trigger condition within the two or more trigger conditions; (receiving first indication information that indicates configuration information comprising one or more triggers for the terminal device to record the mobility report in the event some or all of the triggers are met [Geng: 0027; 0179-81; 0199]).
With regard to Claim 7, Pari-Liu-Geng teaches:
The UE of Claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
generate second information associated with a cell of a first network node, wherein the first network node generates the one trigger condition for the UE storing the first information within the one report, and wherein the second information includes at least one of: a public land mobile network (PLMN) identity (ID), a cell ID, a tracking area code, a physical cell identifier (PCI), or an absolute radio frequency channel number (ARFCN); and transmit the one report and the second information via the transceiver to a network node connected with the UE after completing the inter-RAT HO procedure; (the mobility report comprises cell information of the cell of the source MN as well as cell information of the cell of the source SN and the cell of the target SN and can include PLMN + CELL ID + TAC [Geng: 0210-17], and wherein the first indication information indicates whether the UE is to record the mobility report and may be sent by the source SN [Geng: 0148-49] or the target SN [Geng: 0175]).
With regard to Claims 14-15, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1 & 7 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 7.
With regard to Claims 17 & 19, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 2 & 4 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 17 & 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2 & 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 2025/0274821 A1) which teaches receiving, from a first RAN node via a cell, a configuration for successful handover reporting (SHR) by the UE, wherein the configuration for SHR includes a first partial SHR configuration pertaining to a source cell for UE handover, and a second partial SHR configuration pertaining to one or more target cells for UE handover [abstract].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached on 571-270-3667. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
