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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the combination of Chandrashekar, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0224137 and Kim, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0422590. Specifically, the applicant argues that the combined references do not disclose wherein performing the RACH-less LTM execution procedure comprises sending a Scheduling Request (SR) over Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) on the LTM candidate cell. The examiner, however, disagrees.
The present invention describes a user device that performs a RACH-less Layer1/Layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) execution procedure to an LTM candidate cell when the cell is also currently a serving cell with which the user equipment is configured wherein performing the execution procedure comprising sending a scheduling request over a PUCCH on the LTM cell.
The primary reference, Chandrashekar, discloses realizing random access channel-less layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility in a telecommunications system. Further, Chandrashekar discloses a user equipment being handed over from a serving cell to a target cell. Layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) inter-cell handover at a base station can occur by performing Serving Cell Change (SSC) from a serving cell to a target cell (see 0079).
Chandrashekar also teaches that the functionality of the base stations is to provide radio functions and perform key control functions that include scheduling air link resources for a user equipment (see 0048). In preparation for the handoff, the target base station reserves the necessary resources for the user equipment once a user equipment context setup request message is sent to the target base station (0100).
Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose the UE sending a Scheduling Request (SR) over Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) as claimed.
The secondary reference, Kim, is cited as it discloses this limitation. Kim specifically teaches that a terminal device can transmit a PUCCH (e.g., a preamble for scheduling request (SR) to a base station when resources are needed (0212).
Thus, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is motivation to combine the references since Chandrashekar teaches channel-less layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility that uses scheduling to reserve resources for a user equipment based on an uplink request when resources are needed and Kim teaches a terminal device transmits a PUCCH (e.g., a preamble for scheduling request (SR) to a base station when resources are needed.
Therefore, based on the above remarks, the examiner maintains that the combination of Chandrashekar and Kim describes the invention as presently claimed. A rejection to the claims is set forth below.
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 (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 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) 1-7, 13, 14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0224137 in view of Kim, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0422590.
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Chandrashekar discloses a method performed by a UE, a User Equipment (having inherently an antenna, RF circuitry and a processor) and a CRM (see 0135) comprising: performing a Random Access Channel (RACH)-less Layer 1/Layer 2 Triggered Mobility (LTM) execution procedure to an LTM candidate cell (target cell) (the current subject matter relates to realizing random access channel layer-less (RACH-less) layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM)) (abstract and 0078); (Layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) inter-cell handover at a base station can occur by performing Serving Cell Change (SSC) from a serving cell to a target cell. Multiple target cells may satisfy radio conditions or handover criteria needed for the UE to undergo SSC and thus be viable target cell options for HO) (0079) when the LTM candidate cell is also a current serving cell with which the UE is configured (a UE is handed off from the serving cell of the base station to a target cell of the SAME base station) (0084).
Chandrashekar, however, fails to specifically disclose the UE sending a Scheduling Request (SR) over Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH). It should be noted, however, that the UE does send to the candidate/target cell on an inherent uplink channel a UE Context Setup Request Message for preparation for the handoff (the preparation 706 of the at least one target cell, which in this illustrated implementation is only the target DU 806, can include the CU-CP 808 transmitting 832 a UE Context Setup Request message to the target DU 806, in accordance with 3GPP standards, using an F1 communication interface.) (0103).
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses a method and apparatus for managing partial bandwidth for cell group activation or inactivation in a next generation mobile communication system.
Kim further discloses a UE (terminal) sending a Scheduling Request (SR) over Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) (a terminal may…transmit a PUCCH (e.g., a preamble for scheduling request (SR) to a base station) (0212).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chandrashekar with the teachings of Kim as it alerts the base station that data needs to be transmitted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the current serving cell is configured at the UE before the LTM execution (The UE is provided with at least one LTM candidate cell configuration by the network before execution of an LTM cell switch procedure.) (Chandrashekar, 0043).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein performing the RACH-less LTM execution procedure to the LTM candidate cell is in response to reception of an LTM cell switch command (serving cell change command) (In response to determining 702 that a serving cell change should occur, the serving DU 804 notifies 704 the UE 802 of a serving cell change. As shown in FIG. 8a, the notification 704 to the UE 802 can include the serving DU 804 transmitting 816 a serving cell change command, e.g., a MAC CE, to the UE 802.) (0095).
Regarding claim 4, Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising receiving the LTM cell switch command (the cell change command), prior 20 to performing the RACH-less LTM execution procedure to the LTM candidate cell (In response to determining 702 that a serving cell change should occur, the serving DU 804 notifies 704 the UE 802 of a serving cell change. As shown in FIG. 8a, the notification 704 to the UE 802 can include the serving DU 804 transmitting 816 a serving cell change command, e.g., a MAC CE, to the UE 802.) (0095).
Regarding claim 5, Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the LTM cell switch command is received from a Serving Distributed Unit (S-DU) (DU units) (0095) that is associated to one of a Master Cell Group (MCG) or a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) (which reads on the macro cells and the small cells shown in figure 4; see 0090)) of the UE (In response to determining 702 that a serving cell change should occur, the serving DU 804 notifies 704 the UE 802 of a serving cell change. As shown in FIG. 8a, the notification 704 to the UE 802 can include the serving DU 804 transmitting 816 a serving cell change command, e.g., a MAC CE, to the UE 802.) (0095).
Regarding claim 6, Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the LTM cell switch command comprises an indication that at least no valid timing adjustment or no timing advance (TA infeasibility) is available ( for the LTM candidate cell indicated in the LTM cell switch command (In case of a change in the serving cell TA leading to infeasibility of the RACH-less HO, the serving DU 804 can be configured to indicate to the UE 802 in the transmitted 848 serving cell change command that a RACH-based HO should be performed with the target cell.) (0119).
Regarding claim 7, Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 3, wherein performing the RACH-less LTM execution procedure is triggered by reception of the LTM cell switch command and for the case when the UE is not configured to estimate a timing advance (TA) on its own (the TA is acquired from the serving cell) (The serving DU 804 can be configured to compare the TA of the UE 802 in serving cell (determined at the serving DU 804) and the selected 710, 846 target cell (acquired during UL sync and therefore determine if the previously configured RACH-less HO can be executed to the given target cell. In case of a change in the serving cell TA leading to infeasibility of the RACH-less HO, the serving DU 804 can be configured to indicate to the UE 802 in the transmitted 848 serving cell change command that a RACH-based HO should be performed with the target cell.) (0119).
Regarding claim 13, Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the LTM candidate cell is at least one of: a Secondary Cell (SCell) of a same cell group in which the LTM execution procedure is being triggered; a SCell of a different cell group from that in which the LTM execution procedure is being triggered; or a Special Cell (SpCell) of a different cell group from that in which the LTM execution procedure is being triggered (In an inter-DU LTM scenario, one or more of the at least one LTM-prepared target cells belong to a different DU than the serving DU 806. For example, with reference to the system of FIG. 6b, the serving DU can be a small cell 626 of macro1 DU 628a, and one or more of the target cells can be one or more small cells 626 of macro2 DU 628b and/or macro3 DU 628c.) (0107).
Regarding claim 14, Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the RACH-less LTM execution procedure to the LTM candidate cell is performed (the current subject matter relates to realizing random access channel layer-less (RACH-less) layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM)) (abstract and 0078); (Layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) inter-cell handover at a base station can occur by performing Serving Cell Change (SSC) from a serving cell to a target cell. Multiple target cells may satisfy radio conditions or handover criteria needed for the UE to undergo SSC and thus be viable target cell options for HO) (0079) when the LTM candidate cell is also a current serving cell with which the UE is configured (a UE is handed off from the serving cell of the base station to a target cell of the SAME base station) (0084) and when uplink synchronization to the serving cell is valid (the configuration of the plurality of target cells being RACH-less or RACH-based configurations, can be configured to configure the UE 802 to perform uplink (UL) synchronization (sync) to the selected 710, 846 target cell, while still serving as serving cell and in advance to the serving cell change.) (0119).
Regarding claim 16, Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 1, the RACH-less LTM execution procedure to the LTM candidate cell is performed when: 15 the LTM candidate cell is also a current serving cell with which the UE is configured; and when at least one of: uplink synchronization to the serving cell is valid; or the UE has obtained, for the serving cell, information on how to perform UL sync which was not part of the LTM configuration (reads on the serving DU 804 can configure the UE 802 to perform the uplink sync by, for example, transmitting a command to the UE 802 prior to the transmission 848 of the MAC CE to the UE 802 and thus before the serving cell change has occurred.) (0119).
Regarding claim 17, Chandrashekar as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein performing the RACH-less LTM execution procedure to the LTM candidate cell comprises any one or more of the following: sending uplink information using a pre-configured uplink grant on the LTM candidate cell; selecting a beam of the LTM candidate cell; applying an LTM candidate cell configuration associated to the LTM candidate cell (In particular, the network, based on L1 measurements received, can indicate in an L2 signaling (e.g., a message such as a MAC CE) a beam belonging to an LTM candidate cell to which the UE should perform the LTM cell switch procedure. The UE is provided with at least one LTM candidate cell configuration by the network before execution of an LTM cell switch procedure.) (0043).
Regarding claim 21, Chandrashekar discloses radio access network node (base station) configured to communicate directly or indirectly with a UE, the radio access network node comprising: inherently an antenna configured to send and receive wireless signals; and inherently radio front-end circuitry connected to the antenna and inherently to processing circuitry (see 0135), and inherently configured to condition signals communicated between the antenna and the processing circuitry, the processing circuitry being configured to perform a Random Access Channel (RACH)-less Layer 1/Layer 2 Triggered Mobility (LTM) execution procedure with a user equipment (UE) (the current subject matter relates to realizing random access channel layer-less (RACH-less) layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM)) (abstract and 0078); (Layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) inter-cell handover at a base station can occur by performing Serving Cell Change (SSC) from a serving cell to a target cell. Multiple target cells may satisfy radio conditions or handover criteria needed for the UE to undergo SSC and thus be viable target cell options for HO) (0079) wherein the network node is an LTM candidate cell of the UE and also a current serving cell with which the UE is configured (a UE is handed off from the serving cell of the base station to a target cell of the SAME base station) (0084).
Chandrashekar, however, fails to specifically disclose the UE sending a Scheduling Request (SR) over Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH). It should be noted, however, that the UE does send to the candidate/target cell on an inherent uplink channel a UE Context Setup Request Message for preparation for the handoff (the preparation 706 of the at least one target cell, which in this illustrated implementation is only the target DU 806, can include the CU-CP 808 transmitting 832 a UE Context Setup Request message to the target DU 806, in accordance with 3GPP standards, using an F1 communication interface.) (0103).
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses a method and apparatus for managing partial bandwidth for cell group activation or inactivation in a next generation mobile communication system.
Kim further discloses a UE (terminal) sending a Scheduling Request (SR) over Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) (a terminal may…transmit a PUCCH (e.g., a preamble for scheduling request (SR) to a base station) (0212).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chandrashekar with the teachings of Kim as it alerts the base station that data needs to be transmitted.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar and Kim in further view of Kim et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0086614.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chandrashekar and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. The combination, however, fails to disclose wherein performing the RACH-less LTM execution procedure to the LTM candidate cell is in response to fulfillment of a Conditional LTM (CLTM) execution condition.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim et al. discloses a method and apparatus for conditional mobility failure handling in a wireless communication system.
Kim et al. further discloses performing a RACH-less LTM execution procedure to the LTM candidate cell is in response to fulfillment of a Conditional LTM (CLTM) execution condition (If RACH-less mobility is configured, the container may include timing adjustment indication and optionally a preallocated uplink grant. The mobility request ACK message may also include RNL/TNL information for forwarding tunnels, if necessary. As soon as the source cell receives the mobility request ACK message, or as soon as the transmission of the conditional mobility command is initiated in the downlink, data forwarding may be initiated.) (0186).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Chandrashekar and Kim with the teachings of Kim et al. as combining prior art elements according to known methods yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. as modified discloses re method of claim 8, further comprising determining that the CLTM execution condition is fulfilled, prior to performing the RACH-less LTM execution procedure to the LTM candidate cell (As soon as the source cell receives the mobility request ACK message, or as soon as the transmission of the conditional mobility command is initiated in the downlink, data forwarding may be initiated.) (0186).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the CLTM execution condition is associated to the LTM candidate cell (The conditional reconfiguration may be also referred to as (or, may comprise) conditional handover (CHO) configuration and/or a conditional mobility command (e.g., CHO command). The conditional reconfiguration may comprise a conditional reconfiguration for each of the candidate target cells (e.g., target cell 1, target cell 2).) (0187).
Regarding claim 11, Chandrashekar and Kim et al. as modified disclose the method of claim 8, wherein performing the RACH-less LTM execution is triggered in response to fulfillment of the CLTM execution condition (If RACH-less mobility is configured, the container may include timing adjustment indication and optionally a preallocated uplink grant. The mobility request ACK message may also include RNL/TNL information for forwarding tunnels, if necessary. As soon as the source cell receives the mobility request ACK message, or as soon as the transmission of the conditional mobility command is initiated in the downlink, data forwarding may be initiated.) (Kim et al., 0186) and for the case when the UE is not configured to estimate a timing advance (TA) on its own (the TA is acquired from the serving cell) (The serving DU 804 can be configured to compare the TA of the UE 802 in serving cell (determined at the serving DU 804) and the selected 710, 846 target cell (acquired during UL sync and therefore determine if the previously configured RACH-less HO can be executed to the given target cell. In case of a change in the serving cell TA leading to infeasibility of the RACH-less HO, the serving DU 804 can be configured to indicate to the UE 802 in the transmitted 848 serving cell change command that a RACH-based HO should be performed with the target cell.) (Chandrashekar, 0119).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. as modified discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the CLTM execution condition comprises any one or more of the following: the LTM candidate cell becomes an offset better than a current Special cell (SpCell); a beam with highest measurement quantity of the LTM candidate cell becomes an offset better than a beam with highest measurement quantity of the current SpCell, wherein the measurement quantity comprises any one of: a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), or a Signal-to-Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR); a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) with highest measurement quantity of the LTM 25 candidate cell becomes an offset better than an SSB with highest measurement quantity of the current SpCell, wherein the measurement quantity comprises any one of an RSRP, an RSRQ or an SINR; or a lower layer measurement of the LTM candidate cell becomes an offset better than a lower layer measurement of the current SpCell (reads on For example, the entering condition for event A3 may be satisfied if a signal quality for a target cell is better than that for a serving cell more than or equal to the offset value. For another example, an entering condition for event A5 may be satisfied if a signal quality for a target cell is better than the target cell threshold and a signal quality for a serving cell is lower than the serving cell threshold. The mobility condition may also be referred to as an execution condition/conditional execution condition/conditional mobility execution condition (e.g., CHO execution condition).) (0050).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar and Kim in further view of Park et al. (Park), U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0147315.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chandrashekar and Kim discloses the method of claim 14 as described above. The combination, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein uplink synchronization to the serving cell is valid when a time alignment timer, associated to the serving cell, is still running.
In a similar field of endeavor, Park discloses a method and apparatus for managing synchronization in a communication system.
Park further teaches wherein a mobile terminal may determine whether an uplink synchronization validity timer for the corresponding cell has expired (S902). As a result of the determination, the uplink synchronization validity timer for the corresponding cell may have not been expired and may be running. In this case, the terminal may determine that the uplink synchronization for the cell is valid (0109).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Chandrashekar and Kim in order to reduce the chance of interference. Although, Park does not specifically disclose a serving cell, the examiner contends, however, that such a modification would require only routine skill in the art to implement.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan and Kim and further in view of Guo et al. (Guo), U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0388871.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Chandrashekar and Kim discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. The combination, however, fails to disclose wherein a source cell and a target cell have same Timing Advance Group (TAG).
In a similar field of endeavor, Guo discloses mobility features for next generation cellular networks. Guo further discloses wherein a source cell and a target cell have same Timing Advance Group (TAG) (In Carrier Aggregation (CA), two or more Component Carriers (CCs) are aggregated. A UE 5402 may simultaneously receive or transmit on one or multiple CCs depending on its capabilities. For example, a UE 5402 with single timing advance (TA) capability for CA can simultaneously receive and/or transmit on multiple CCs corresponding to multiple serving cells sharing the same TA (multiple serving cells grouped in one timing advance group (TAG))) (0066).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Chandrashekar and Kim with the teachings of Guo since it is known that combining prior art elements according to known methods yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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 TEMICA M. BEAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 3:00 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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/TEMICA M BEAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646