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 .
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.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabulut et al. (US 2025/0126635, “Karabulut”) in view of Chen (US 2025/0301381).
Regarding claim 14, Karabulut teaches a wireless device (FIG. 7 UE 208) comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (FIG. 10), cause the wireless device to:
{receive, from a first base station, a first message comprising an enquiry for a wireless device capability};
{after receiving the first message, transmit, to the first base station, a second message} indicating that the wireless device supports a conditional layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) ([0074] “the UE is connected to the S-DU 212A/cell (serving cell), and the UE is capable of both RACH-based acquisition (at times referred to as RACH-based early TA acquisition) and UE-based acquisition (at times referred to as UE-based TA estimate). This capability of the UE is known to the network (e.g., CU 210), such as part of the UE capabilities”. [0007] “LTM procedure, the TA of the candidate target cell(s) may be acquired according to a random access channel (RACH)-based acquisition scheme. Other schemes for acquiring the TA may be RACH-less schemes. One example is a UE-based acquisition scheme in which the UE may derive the TA based on a receive timing difference between its current serving cell and a candidate target cell, as well as a TA value for the serving cell”);
receive, from a central unit (CU) of a second base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message comprising an LTM configuration ([0075] “the CU generates RRC reconfiguration(s) for the configured candidate target cell(s); and at steps 707 and 708, the transmits the RRC configuration(s) to the UE 208”), {wherein: the LTM configuration includes an execution condition of the conditional LTM }, indicated by a user equipment (UE) context modification response message corresponding to a UE context modification request message; and the UE context modification request message comprises: an identifier of a candidate cell of the conditional LTM (“the claim is directed to a wireless device. However, there is no evidence that “a context modification response message, a UE context modification request message and a request for the execution condition of the conditional LTM are sent or received by the wireless device. Therefore, the claimed feature is considered “optional.” MPEP 2143.03 recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.”);
{and the execution condition is for the candidate cell}; and
based on the execution condition of the conditional LTM being satisfied, initiate the conditional LTM ([0081] “The UE 208 at step 712 initiates a procedure to acquire or otherwise estimate the UE-based TA value of the T-DU 212B/cell according to the UE-based acquisition scheme… the procedure may be triggered by the UE, such as by monitoring relevant reference signal measurements, and later perform the UE-based acquisition when a given condition is met or another trigger mechanism is activated. [0100] “accessing the target cell using a TA value selected from the UE-based TA value and the RACH-based TA value, based on the configuration, as shown at block 810”).
Karabulut does not teach
receive, from a first base station, a first message comprising an enquiry for a wireless device capability; after receiving the first message, transmit, to the first base station, a second message and the
wherein: the LTM configuration includes an execution condition of the conditional LTM and the execution condition is for the candidate cell.
Chen teaches receive, from a first base station, a first message comprising an enquiry for a wireless device capability; after receiving the first message, transmit, to the first base station, a second message ([0050] - the NW may transmit a UE capability enquiry message (i.e., UECapabilityEnquiry message) to the UE and then the UE may report the requested UE capability message in a UE capability information message (i.e., UECapabilityInformation message))
and wherein: the LTM configuration includes an execution condition of the conditional LTM and the execution condition is for the candidate cell ([0062] “the serving gNB may transmit an RRCReconfiguration message to the UE, including at least the LTM candidate configuration(s) and conditional LTM execution condition(s)… )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature receive, from a first base station, a first message comprising an enquiry for a wireless device capability; after receiving the first message, transmit, to the first base station, a second message,
wherein: the LTM configuration includes an execution condition of the conditional LTM and the execution condition is for the candidate cell, as taught by Chen, in Karabulut, to achieve high robustness and short interruption.
Regarding claim 15, Karabulut in view of Chen teaches claim 14 and Karabulut further teaches wherein the first base station and the second base station are the same or different (FIG. 7A – S-DU 212A and CU 210).
Regarding claim 16, Karabulut in view of Chen teaches claim 14 but Karabulut fails to teach wherein the execution condition indicates an identifier of a layer 1 measurement reporting configuration.
Chen teaches wherein the execution condition indicates an identifier of a layer 1 measurement reporting configuration ([0062] “serving gNB may transmit an RRCReconfiguration message to the UE, including at least the LTM candidate configuration(s) and conditional LTM execution condition(s)… The execution condition may be associated with a measurement ID (e.g., measID) or an associated measurement report configuration… In case of inter-CU conditional LTM, the execution condition(s) of a candidate target cell may be generated by a candidate gNB of the candidate target cell.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein the execution condition indicates an identifier of a layer 1 measurement reporting configuration, as taught by Chen, in Karabulut, to achieve high robustness and short interruption.
Regarding claim 17 Karabulut in view of Chen teaches claim 14 but Karabulut fails to teach wherein the execution condition is based on at least one of: a first measurement result of a cell of the DU; or a second measurement result of the candidate cell.
Chen teaches wherein the execution condition is based on at least one of: a first measurement result of a cell of the DU; or a second measurement result of the candidate cell ([0062] “In case of inter-CU conditional LTM, the execution condition(s) of a candidate target cell may be generated by a candidate gNB of the candidate target cell. The execution condition may be associated with a measurement ID (e.g., measID) or an associated measurement report configuration. The associated measurement report configuration may be provided for SSB based L1 measurement(s), CRI-RS based L1 measurement(s), SSB based L3 measurement(s), or CRI-RS based L3 measurement(s).)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein the execution condition indicates an identifier of a layer 1 measurement reporting configuration, as taught by Chen, in Karabulut, to achieve high robustness and short interruption.
Regarding claim 18 Karabulut in view of Chen teaches claim 14 and further teaches wherein the candidate cell is a cell of a second DU of the base station (FIG. 7A T-DU 2128).
Regarding claim 19 Karabulut in view of Chen teaches claim 14 but fails to teach wherein the conditional LTM is from a cell of the DU to the candidate cell.
Chen teaches wherein the execution condition is based on at least one of: a first measurement result of a cell of the DU; or a second measurement result of the candidate cell ([0062] “In case of inter-CU conditional LTM, the execution condition(s) of a candidate target cell may be generated by a candidate gNB of the candidate target cell. The execution condition may be associated with a measurement ID (e.g., measID) or an associated measurement report configuration. The associated measurement report configuration may be provided for SSB based L1 measurement(s), CRI-RS based L1 measurement(s), SSB based L3 measurement(s), or CRI-RS based L3 measurement(s).)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein the execution condition indicates an identifier of a layer 1 measurement reporting configuration, as taught by Chen, in Karabulut, to achieve high robustness and short interruption.
Regarding claim 20 Karabulut in view of Chen teaches claim 14 but fails to teach wherein the execution condition is satisfied, based on the wireless device performing a measurement on at least one of: the cell of the DU; or the candidate cell.
Chen teaches wherein the execution condition is based on at least one of: a first measurement result of a cell of the DU; or a second measurement result of the candidate cell ([0062] “In case of inter-CU conditional LTM, the execution condition(s) of a candidate target cell may be generated by a candidate gNB of the candidate target cell. The execution condition may be associated with a measurement ID (e.g., measID) or an associated measurement report configuration. The associated measurement report configuration may be provided for SSB based L1 measurement(s), CRI-RS based L1 measurement(s), SSB based L3 measurement(s), or CRI-RS based L3 measurement(s).)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein the execution condition is based on at least one of: a first measurement result of a cell of the DU; or a second measurement result of the candidate cell, as taught by Chen, in Karabulut, to achieve high robustness and short interruption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “Response to Examiner’s Claim Scope Interpretation”, the issue is addressed in Examiner’s response section (III).
(I) Regarding the rejection of claim 14, Applicant argues Karabulut does not teach or suggest “transmitting to the first base station, a second message indicating the wireless device supports a conditional layer 1 or layer 2 trigger mobility (LTM)” (Remarks, page 7).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Karabulut teaches UE capabilities that indicates “RACH-based early TA acquisition” ([0074] “the UE is connected to the S-DU 212A/cell (serving cell), and the UE is capable of both RACH-based acquisition (at times referred to as RACH-based early TA acquisition) and UE-based acquisition (at times referred to as UE-based TA estimate). This capability of the UE is known to the network (e.g., CU 210), such as part of the UE capabilities”) which is necessary for LTM procedure ([0006] “LTM supports an early synchronization to one or more candidate target cells, during which a UE may acquire a timing advance (TA) of respective ones of the candidate target cell(s). This early synchronization may reduce interruption during LTM execution” [0007] “In an LTM procedure, the TA of the candidate target cell(s) may be acquired according to a random access channel (RACH)-based acquisition scheme.”) Therefore “RACH-based early TA acquisition” capability teaches the claimed feature “supports a conditional layer 1 or layer 2 trigger mobility (LTM)”.
Although Karabulut does not teach the capability being requested and provided upon request, however, the feature is taught by Chen which states [0050] “the NW may transmit a UE capability enquiry message (i.e., UECapabilityEnquiry message) to the UE and then the UE may report the requested UE capability message in a UE capability information message (i.e., UECapabilityInformation message)).
Therefore, the Examiner submits the combination of Karabulut and Chen teaches the claimed feature receive, from a first base station, a first message comprising an enquiry for a wireless device capability; after receiving the first message, transmit, to the first base station, a second message indicating that the wireless device supports a conditional layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM).
(II) Further, Applicant argues Karabulut “does not teach or suggest that “the LTM configuration includes an execution condition of the conditional LTM, indicated by a user equipment (UE) context modification response message corresponding to a UE context modification request message,” as required by claim 14” (page 7)
However, the Examiner submits Chen teaches the limitations, particularly Chen states [0062] “[0062] In step 303, the serving gNB may transmit an RRCReconfiguration message to the UE, including at least the LTM candidate configuration(s) and conditional LTM execution condition(s). It should be noted that the conditional LTM candidate configuration includes as least one LTM candidate configuration (of a target candidate cell) and at least one associated conditional LTM execution condition.”
Therefore, the Examiner submits Chen teaches the claimed feature wherein: the LTM configuration includes an execution condition of the conditional LTM and the execution condition is for the candidate cell.
(III) Lastly, Applicant argues “Karabulut does not teach or suggest that “the UE context modification request message comprises: (i) an identifier of a candidate cell of the conditional LTM: and (ii) a request for the execution condition of the conditional LTM.” (see page 8).
However the claim language does not require a response message being transmitted or received by the wireless device as claimed by claim 14, and Applicant acknowledges “[t]he claim does not require that the wireless device send or receive the UE context modification request message.” (see Remarks, page 5, last paragraph). Therefore the limitation is considered “optional.” MPEP 2143.03 recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.”
Therefore, the Examiner submits the references are not required to teach the feature a user equipment (UE) context modification response message corresponding to a UE context modification request message; and the UE context modification request message comprises: an identifier of a candidate cell of the conditional LTM, to satisfy the requirements of claim 14.
Therefore, the Examiner submits Karabulut and Chen in combination address all requirements of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US 2025/0310842) teaches the mechanism for LTM in which the NW configures and UE reports its capability supporting LTM. The NW then provides LTM-related assistance information.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/QUOC THAI N VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights