DETAILED ACTION
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 the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 05/01/2025 and 08/10/2026 have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The Abstract provided by the Applicant is too long.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 35-65 are objected to because of the following informalities: as to claim 35, line 14, “target network node;” should be replaced by target network node; and. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 36-65 depend on claim 35, therefore they are objected to as well.
Claims 36-65 are objected to because of the following informalities: as to claims 36-65, line 1, “User equipment” should be replaced by The user equipment. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 66 is objected to because of the following informalities: as to claim 66, line 10, “network node;” should be replaced by network node; and. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 67 and 68 are objected to because of the following informalities: as to claim 67, line 8, “network node;” should be replaced by network node; and. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 68 depends on claim 67 and has been objected to as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the invention’s disclosure does not provide a clear definition for the term “computer program product”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim suggests that the computer program product can be a transitory computer readable medium (a signal or carrier wave) or even a program per se. In both scenarios, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 66-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more. The claims recite “determining that a user equipment is configured to apply layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility; providing to the user equipment a reference signal configuration associated with a reference signal receivable from one or more network node of the radio access network, wherein the configuration may include an configuration of a reference signal receivable from a target network node; providing a mobility trigger to the user equipment indicating that the user equipment is to switch to the target network node, wherein the mobility trigger may include a configuration associated with a reference signal receivable from the target network node.” The step of “determining that a user equipment is configured to apply layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility” is a mental process because it can be interpreted as a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, and judgement). In other words, it can be determined that a user equipment is configured to apply layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility by observing the information related to this matter. The steps of “providing to the user equipment a reference signal configuration” and “providing a mobility trigger to the user equipment” are steps related to transmitting information according to conventional rules, without specifying a technological improvement. These steps can also be interpreted as a post-solution activities. All the steps cited above can be considered as a mental process performed by a human. According to the Court, concepts determined to be abstract ideas and, thus, patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)), and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,67 (1972)). Nothing in claims 66-68, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information; see also Alice. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The “network node”, “radio access network”, “processor”, “memory”, and “user equipment” are general purpose computer components. The cited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the general-purpose computer system. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application, because the claim recites only a generic well-known computer component as additional elements (e.g., a memory, a processor, and user equipment). As explained above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional components, as cited in claims 66-68, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 66-68 are directed to an abstract idea, because the claim limitations cited in these claims only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not meaningfully limit the claims, thus do not transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 66-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramachandra et al. (hereinafter, referred to as Ramachandra) (WO 2022091072, see the IDS document submitted on 05/01/2025).
As to claims 66-68, Ramachandra discloses a network node (see the abstract) for a radio access network (see paragraphs 0054 and 0101) and comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see Fig. 17, blocks 403 and 405 and paragraphs 0072 and 0101), cause the user equipment at least to: determine that a user equipment is configured to apply layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (see paragraphs 0047, 0052, 0056, 0091, 0115-0116, 0120, 0123, and 0129); provide to the user equipment a reference signal configuration associated with a reference signal receivable from one or more network node of the radio access network, wherein the configuration may comprise an configuration of a reference signal receivable from a target network node (see paragraphs 0033-0034, 0080, 0107-0108, 0123-0124, 0137, and 0139); and provide a mobility trigger to the user equipment indicating that the user equipment is to switch to the target network node, wherein the mobility trigger may include a configuration associated with a reference signal receivable from the target network node (see the abstract, paragraphs 0047 and 0129 and also see the paragraphs cited in the last section). As to claim 68, Ramachandra further discloses a computer program product operable, when executed on a computer, to perform the method steps cited above (see paragraph 0101).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-65 would be allowable if rewritten in a way that overcomes the objections cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 2023/0379769).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEILA MALEK whose telephone number is (571)272-8731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
LEILA . MALEK
Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/LEILA MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights