DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application: Claims 1-20 are present for examination at this time.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected.
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 are objected to.
Please refer to the attached PTO Form 892 and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers.
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
Applicant’s claim for foreign priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted 4/23/2025 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 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 § 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 and 12 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 pre-AIA the
Applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 12 recite the limitations:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a third message from the first node, wherein the third message includes an identification of a target cell;
wherein in case that the UE does not successfully access the target cell, performing a random access process;
wherein in case that the random access process fails, performing cell selection;
in case that LTM handover fails or handover fails, performing cell selection;
and in case that a selected target cell is an LTM candidate cell, transmitting an LTM handover completion indication to the target cell or performing a random access process.”.
It is not clear from the conditional phrasing if all 4 cases occur and are required steps or if each case is a possibility and only one need occur. For the purposes of examination the claim was interpreted to mean one of the “in cases” was met.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 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 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “L1 Measurement Configuration For Inter-Cell Mobility” by He et al., US 20260197723 A1 (“He”) which traces its priority to a date prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention
PNG
media_image1.png
662
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
He Figure 5
With respect to Claims 1, 7, 13, and 15 He discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (as well as a related method performed by a node, related user equipment and a related node), the method comprising:
receiving a first message from a first node, wherein the first message includes information of at least one first L1/L2-triggered mobility (LTM) candidate cell or at least one secondary cell information (He at Figure 5, element 504 and as described by ¶¶73-75 where the network node can send the UE configuration information that contains channel state information, CSI, for other cells);
transmitting a measurement report to the first node (He at Figure 5 element 516 where the UE sends back measurement reports);
and receiving a second message from the first node, wherein the second message includes information of at least one second LTM candidate cell or at least one secondary cell information (He at ¶146 where the node can send back information about additional cells as part of the LTM operations) or information for indicating at least one first LTM candidate cell for which measurement needs to be performed.
With respect to Claims 2, 8, and 14, He discloses the method of Claim 1 (as well as a related method performed by a node, and related user equipment) wherein the first message further includes L1 measurement configuration information (He at ¶¶66, 73 where the configuration information is sent and includes trigger conditions),
wherein the L1 measurement configuration information includes a neighboring cell L1 measurement trigger condition (Id.),
wherein the UE triggers a neighboring cell L1 measurement based on the neighboring cell L1 measurement trigger condition (He at ¶¶ 138, 145-146) ,
and wherein the neighboring cell L1 measurement trigger condition includes that a reference signal receiving power (RSRP) value of a special cell is lower than a first neighboring cell measurement threshold (He at ¶¶66, 75-76 where , measured RSSP is a triggering condition. While He does not explicitly use the words threshold and lower, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that when a disclosure teaches that a measured RSSP level can trigger a handover this means that the serving cell has a lower power than a target cell, as handovers are not intrinsically designed for the purpose of moving a UE from a good signal to a lesser signal)
With respect to Claims 3 and 9, He discloses the method of Claim 2 (as well as a related method performed by a node) wherein the L1 measurement configuration information is received by the UE from a second node, and wherein the L1 measurement configuration information is received by the second node from the first node after the second node indicates the first node to transmit the L1 measurement configuration information (He at ¶115 where a second node can transmit the information “The network may transmit the indication to the UE via any serving cell(s). For example, a primary cell or a secondary cell may transmit the indication.”)
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. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as upatentable over He in view of “Method and Apparatus for Performing Handover” by Kim et al., US2019/0246323A1 (“Kim”).
With respect to Claims 6 and 12 , while He discloses the of Claim 1, (as well as a related method performed by a node) further comprising:
receiving a third message from the first node, wherein the third message includes an identification of a target cell (while this is not explicitly stated in He, this is a repetition of steps which makes the process continuous. One of ordinary skill in the art would not read He and consider the measurement and handover process to be a single use process. In a wireless system, the nodes and UEs are measuring channels constantly in case a handover is needed. This type of continuous operation is considered per se obvious per MPEP 2144.04(V)(E);
He does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Kim. Kim discloses wherein in case that the UE does not successfully access the target cell, performing a random access process;
wherein in case that the random access process fails, performing cell selection (Kim at ¶162, 182, and 185 where the system performs a new handover when the old handover fails);
in case that LTM handover fails or handover fails, performing cell selection (Kim at ¶162, 182, and 185 where the system performs a new handover when the old handover fails);
and in case that a selected target cell is an LTM candidate cell, transmitting an LTM handover completion indication to the target cell or performing a random access process (Kim at ¶162, 182, and 185 where the system performs a new handover when the old handover fails).
Reasons to combine: He and Kim are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are in the same field of endeavor, performing successful handover operations in a wireless system. Even though a candidate cell might have a good signal it might not have the capacity to add another UE connection. Therefore, there is a need to have the ability to switch to a new cell so as to not lose a connection session. This is also noted at Kim ¶4 “However, in this mobility procedure such as the conditional handover, a case of that the UE declares the failure from the selected target cell has not been discussed yet. Thus, a method for a UE to perform a handover to new target cell and an apparatus supporting the same need to be proposed.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine He with Kim to build backup handover capability so as to not lose connectivity overall.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The documents below were considered.
“User Equipment, Has Processor For Executing Artificial Intelligence/machine Learning Agent And Determining Whether To Initiate Handover According To Received Configuration Information For Machine Learning Handover Event" by Madadi et al., US2022/0286927 ("Madadi").”
Madadi teaches conditional handover triggers in a 5G system. Many of the same techniques in this reference map up well against the limitations of Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p.
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, Yuwen “Kevin” Pan at 571-272-7855. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights