DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments, filed on January 22, 2026, regarding rejection of claims 1-2 and 11-12, as amended, under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any combination of the references being used in the current rejection. Examiner has applied Yang ‘727 (US 2022/0086727) to clearly teach the amended limitations in claims 1-2 and 11-12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘065 (US 2023/0354065, “Zhang ‘065”), in view of Yang ‘727 (US 2022/0086727, “Yang ‘727”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Zhang ‘065 discloses a network device (FIGS. 2 and 8, para 56 and 324; terminal device that is part of a network) comprising:
a processor (FIG. 8, para 324; processor 810) configured to:
receive, via a receiver from a source cell (FIG. 2-3, para 59-85; in a conditional handover procedure, the terminal device receives from a source node configuration information of a handover trigger condition and configuration information of a handover trigger event that corresponds to target cells via different RRC messages),
at least one first message comprising configuration information and at least one execution condition of performing a handover for each of at least one target cell (FIGS. 2-3, para 59-85; a first RRC message carries configuration information of a handover trigger condition for the terminal device to evaluate for the terminal device to perform a handover to a target cell; configuration information of a handover trigger condition reads on configuration information and at least one execution condition of performing a handover for each of at least one target cell) and
a second message indicating one of the at least one target cell (FIGS. 2-3, para 59-85; a second RRC message carries configuration information of a trigger event that is configuration of candidate handover target cells, as part of the handover that the terminal device performs according to the handover trigger condition; thus, the second RRC message indicates the target cells); and
perform a handover to the target cell indicated by the second message based on the configuration information (FIGS. 2-3, para 59-85; the terminal device performs the handover to the target cell indicated by the second RRC message, based on the configuration information of the handover trigger condition).
Although Zhang ‘065 discloses a second message indicating one of the at least one target cell, Zhang ‘065 does not specifically disclose a second message that instructs the network device to perform a handover to the indicted target cell.
Yang ‘727 discloses a second message that instructs the network device to perform a handover to the indicted target cell (FIG. 2, para 36; a terminal performs measurement and sends a measurement result to a source cell; the source cell sends a handover instruction to a target cell; the target confirms that the cell handover is possible, and sends a handover instruction to the terminal, after which the terminal performs the handover to the target cell; thus, the terminal receives a message from the target cell, where the message instructs the terminal to perform the handover to the target cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang ‘065’s network device that receives a message comprising an execution condition of performing a handover, to include Yang ‘727’s message that instructs the terminal to perform the handover to the target cell. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of services being interrupted when a cell handover performed by a terminal fails (Yang ‘727, para 3).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Zhang ‘065 in combination with Yang ‘727 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 11, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Zhang ‘065 discloses wherein the at least one first message includes identification information of each of the at least one target cell and the second message includes the identification information of the target cell indicated by the second message, and/or
wherein the at least one first message and the second message are radio resource control messages (FIGS. 2-3, para 59-85; the terminal device receives from the source node configuration information of a handover trigger condition and configuration information of a handover trigger event that corresponds to target cells via different RRC messages; thus, the terminal device receives two RRC messages; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/459150, respectively, in view of Zhang ‘065. Take an example of comparing claim 1 of pending application and claim 14 of copending application 18/459150:
Pending Application 17/587892 claim 1
Co-pending application 18/459150 claim 14
A wireless communication method for use in a user equipment, comprising:
A method for wireless communication comprising:
receiving, from a source cell, at least one first message comprising configuration information and at least one execution condition of performing a handover for each of at least one target cell,
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a source node, a radio resource control (RRC) message including at least one candidate cell configuration and one or more conditional handover (CHO) execution conditions for each candidate cell; and
performing a handover to the target cell indicated by the second message based on the configuration information.
performing, by the UE, a CHO process from a source cell to a target candidate cell based on the candidate cell configuration
Although co-pending application 18/459150 claim 14 discloses receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a source node, co-pending application 18/459150 claim 14 does not specifically disclose receiving, a second message indicating one of the at least one target cell. Further, although co-pending application 18/459150 claim 14 discloses performing, by the UE, a CHO process from a source cell to a target candidate cell based on the candidate cell configuration, co-pending application 18/459150 claim 14 does not specifically disclose performing a handover to the target cell indicated by the second message.
Zhang ‘065 discloses teaches receiving a second message indicating one of the at least one target cell (FIG. 2-3, para 59-85; in a conditional handover procedure, the terminal device receives from a source node configuration information of a handover trigger condition and configuration information of a handover trigger event that corresponds to target cells via different RRC messages; a second RRC message carries configuration information of a trigger event that is configuration of candidate handover target cells, as part of the handover that the terminal device performs according to the handover trigger condition; thus, the second RRC message indicates the target cells), and
performing a handover to the target cell indicated by the second message (FIG. 2-3, para 59-85; the terminal device performs a handover to a target cell indicated by the second RRC message, based on the configuration information of the handover trigger condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine co-pending application 18/459150 claim 14’s method comprising performing a CHO process, to include Zhang ‘065’s second RRC message that carries configuration information of a trigger event that is configuration of candidate handover target cells. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a solution for configuring a trigger condition for a terminal device in cell handover (Zhang ‘065, para 5).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.0.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571)272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights