DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/21/2025. Claims 1, 4-11, 15, 16, and 19-24 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG (US 20220022083 A1), in view of SAILY et al. (US 20210235333 A1), hereinafter SAILY.
Regarding claim 1, YANG discloses a handover method performed by a terminal, comprising:
receiving configuration information; wherein the configuration information comprises: a trigger event or a trigger event index, and that the trigger event is associated with an identifier of a special cell (SpCell) in a first message, ([0115] and [0118] the reporting trigger event may include at least one of following events: […] an event A3, configured to identify that the signal quality of a neighboring cell is higher than the signal quality of a first serving cell by a particular value, where the first serving cell may be, for example, a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PScell)(which is equivalent to special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)) as interpreted in accordance with Applicant’s specification on page 6 lines 23-24 ("Both the PCell and the PSCell may also be referred to as special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)"), in a multi-connection system”; [0093] “the identification information of the first access network node may include […], an identifier of a serving cell of the first access network node, and a measurement identifier of the first access network node”).
However, YANG does not disclose determining, based on a measurement result of the SpCell, whether a trigger condition corresponding to the trigger event associated with the SpCell is met, and handing over to the SpCell in a case that the trigger condition is met; wherein, the SpCell is associated with the trigger condition; the associated comprising: the trigger condition being in one-to-one correspondence to the SpCell.
In the same field of endeavor, SAILY discloses, determining, based on a measurement result of the SpCell, whether a trigger condition corresponding to the trigger event associated with the SpCell is met, (Fig. 4, par. [0137], “In step 3, the UE 110 sends a Measurement Report message to serving gNB 170-1. The report contains measurements for the cell that triggered the event, and possibly for other suitable PSCell candidates”);
and handing over to the SpCell in a case that the trigger condition is met, (Fig. 4, [0143], [0154]- [0156], after the “gNB1 170-1” sends the “RRC Reconfiguration” for cell 2, 3 and access parameters (step 7), the UE reconfigures with gNB2 (step 10), the “gNB1 170-1” swaps roles with “gNB2 170-2” (step 430) and SgNB is released (step 12) completing the handover);
wherein, the SpCell is associated with the trigger condition, (Fig. 4, step 7, “RRC Reconfiguration” associated with the candidate cells);
the associated comprising: the trigger condition being in one-to-one correspondence to the SpCell, (Fig. 4, “RRC Reconfiguration” associated with cell 2 reads on one-to-one trigger condition or “RRC Reconfiguration” being associated with cell 3 reads on one-to-one 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 have modified the reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]) to incorporate the Measurement Report message, disclosed by SAILY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the handover to gNB2 170-2 takes place and SgNB is released of operations, SAILY (Fig. 4, steps: 3, 7, 10-12, and pars. [0137], [0143], [0154]- [0156]).
Regarding claim 11, YANG discloses a configuration method performed by a network device, comprising: sending configuration information; wherein the configuration information comprises: a trigger event or a trigger event index, and that the trigger event is associated with an identifier of a special cell (SpCell) in a first message, ([0115] and [0118] the reporting trigger event may include at least one of following events: […] an event A3, configured to identify that the signal quality of a neighboring cell is higher than the signal quality of a first serving cell by a particular value, where the first serving cell may be, for example, a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PScell)(which is equivalent to special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)) as interpreted in accordance with Applicant’s specification on page 6 lines 23-24 ("Both the PCell and the PSCell may also be referred to as special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)"), in a multi-connection system”; [0093] “the identification information of the first access network node may include […], an identifier of a serving cell of the first access network node, and a measurement identifier of the first access network node”).
However, YANG does not disclose wherein, the configuration information is used by a terminal to determine whether a trigger condition corresponding to the trigger event associated with the SpCell is met based on a measurement result of the SpCell, and handing over to the SpCell in a case that the trigger condition is met; wherein the SpCell is associated with the trigger condition; the associated comprising: the trigger condition being in one-to-one correspondence to the SpCell.
In the same field of endeavor, SAILY discloses wherein, the configuration information is used by a terminal to determine whether a trigger condition corresponding to the trigger event associated with the SpCell is met based on a measurement result of the SpCell, (Fig. 4, par. [0137], “In step 3, the UE 110 sends a Measurement Report message to serving gNB 170-1. The report contains measurements for the cell that triggered the event, and possibly for other suitable PSCell candidates”);
and handing over to the SpCell in a case that the trigger condition is met, (Fig. 4, pars. [0143], [0154]- [0156], after the “gNB1 170-1” sends the “RRC Reconfiguration” for cell 2, 3 and access parameters (step 7), the UE reconfigures with gNB2 (step 10), the “gNB1 170-1” swaps roles with “gNB2 170-2” (step 430) and SgNB is released (step 12) completing the handover);
wherein the SpCell is associated with the trigger condition, (Fig. 4, step 7, “RRC Reconfiguration” associated with the candidate cells);
the associated comprising: the trigger condition being in one-to-one correspondence to the SpCell, (Fig. 4, “RRC Reconfiguration” associated with cell 2 reads on one-to-one trigger condition or “RRC Reconfiguration” being associated with cell 3 reads on one-to-one 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 have modified the reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]) to incorporate the Measurement Report message, disclosed by SAILY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the handover to gNB2 170-2 takes place and SgNB is released of operations, SAILY (Fig. 4, steps: 3, 7, 10-12, and pars. [0137], [0143], [0154]- [0156]).
Regarding claim 16, YANG discloses a terminal, comprising a memory (FIG. 16: storage 152), a processor (FIG. 16: Processor 151), and a computer program (FIG. 16: Application program 1522), stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor, the computer program implements:
receiving configuration information; wherein the configuration information comprises: a trigger event or a trigger event index, and that the trigger event is associated with an identifier of a special cell (SpCell) in a first message,([0115] and [0118] the reporting trigger event may include at least one of following events: […] an event A3, configured to identify that the signal quality of a neighboring cell is higher than the signal quality of a first serving cell by a particular value, where the first serving cell may be, for example, a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PScell)(which is equivalent to special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)) as interpreted in accordance with Applicant’s specification on page 6 lines 23-24 ("Both the PCell and the PSCell may also be referred to as special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)"), in a multi-connection system”; [0093] “the identification information of the first access network node may include […], an identifier of a serving cell of the first access network node, and a measurement identifier of the first access network node”);
However, YANG does not disclose determining, based on a measurement result of the SpCel, whether a trigger condition corresponding to the trigger event associated with the SpCell is met; and handing over to the SpCell in a case that the trigger condition is met; wherein, the SpCell is associated with the trigger condition; the associated comprising: the trigger condition being in one-to-one correspondence to SpCell.
In the same field of endeavor, SAILY discloses, determining, based on a measurement result of the SpCel, whether a trigger condition corresponding to the trigger event associated with the SpCell is met, (Fig. 4, par. [0137], “In step 3, the UE 110 sends a Measurement Report message to serving gNB 170-1. The report contains measurements for the cell that triggered the event, and possibly for other suitable PSCell candidates”);
and handing over to the SpCell in a case that the trigger condition is met, (Fig. 4, [0143], [0154]- [0156], after the “gNB1 170-1” sends the “RRC Reconfiguration” for cell 2, 3 and access parameters (step 7), the UE reconfigures with gNB2 (step 10), the “gNB1 170-1” swaps roles with “gNB2 170-2” (step 430) and SgNB is released (step 12) completing the handover);
wherein, the SpCell is associated with the trigger condition, (Fig. 4, step 7, “RRC Reconfiguration” associated with the candidate cells);
the associated comprising: the trigger condition being in one-to-one correspondence to SpCell, (Fig. 4, “RRC Reconfiguration” associated with cell 2 reads on one-to-one trigger condition or “RRC Reconfiguration” being associated with cell 3 reads on one-to-one 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 have modified the reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]) to incorporate the Measurement Report message, disclosed by SAILY. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the handover to gNB2 170-2 takes place and SgNB is released of operations, SAILY (Fig. 4, steps: 3, 7, 10-12, and pars. [0137], [0143], [0154]- [0156]).
Claims 4, 5, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG (US 20220022083 A1), in view of SAILY et al. (US 20210235333 A1), hereinafter SAILY, further in view of PARK et al. (US 20190028938 A1), hereinafter PARK.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose wherein in a case that the trigger condition is met, the method further comprises: skipping performing measurement reporting.
In the same field of endeavor, PARK discloses wherein in a case that the trigger
condition is met (see FIG. 5B: S510-S511), the method further comprises:
skipping performing measurement reporting ([see FIG. 5B: S511-S512]; ([0110] “the terminal may determine whether a condition for triggering the handover execution event is satisfied (S510); [0111] When the condition for triggering the handover execution event is satisfied, the terminal may determine whether a handover command message for the first target base station has been stored (S511); [0112] In case that the handover command message for the first target base station has been stored, the terminal may execute the handover to the first target base station (S512)” (i.e., no measurement reporting has been performed hence it has been skipped”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]), as modified by SAILY, to incorporate the condition for triggering the handover execution event, disclosed by PARK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the terminal may execute the handover to the first target base station (S512) when the handover command message for the first target base station has been stored, PARK ([0110]- [0112]).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose further comprising: in a case that the trigger condition is not met, performing at least one of the following: skipping handing over to the SpCell; or performing measurement reporting, or skipping performing measurement reporting.
In the same field of endeavor, PARK discloses further comprising: in a case that the trigger condition is not met (see FIG. 5B: S510-S513), performing at least one of the following: skipping handing over to the PCell or SpCell; or performing measurement reporting, ([see FIG. 5B: S513-S514] and [0113] “when the condition for triggering the handover execution event is not satisfied in the step S510, the terminal may determine whether a condition for triggering the handover preparation event is satisfied (S513); [0114] when the condition for triggering the handover preparation event is satisfied, the terminal may transmit a measurement report message to the serving base station (S514)”), or skipping performing measurement reporting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]), as modified by SAILY, to incorporate the condition for triggering the handover execution event, disclosed by PARK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the terminal may transmit a measurement report message to the serving base station (S514)”), PARK ([0113]- [0114]).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 11 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose, wherein the first message comprises any one of the following: an RRC reconfiguration message, an RRC synchronization reconfiguration message, a handover command, and mobile control information.
In the same field of endeavor, PARK discloses wherein the first message comprises any one of the following: an RRC reconfiguration message ([0057] “when the handover preparation response message includes the information indicating that the handover of the terminal is accepted, the serving base station may transmit to the terminal a handover command message instructing the handover. Here, the handover command message may be a radio resource control (RRC) connection reconfiguration message”); an RRC synchronization reconfiguration message, a handover command, and mobile control information
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]) as modified by SAILY to incorporate the handover preparation response message, disclosed by PARK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the serving base station may transmit to the terminal a handover command message (which may be a RRC connection reconfiguration message, PARK ([0057]).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 16 above, YANG as modified by SAILY
does not disclose, wherein in a case that the trigger condition is met, the method further comprises: skipping performing measurement reporting.
In the same field of endeavor, PARK discloses wherein in a case that the trigger condition is met, the method further comprises: skipping performing measurement reporting, ([see FIG. 5B: S511-S512]; ([0110] “the terminal may determine whether a condition for triggering the handover execution event is satisfied (S510); [0111] “When the condition for triggering the handover execution event is satisfied, the terminal may determine whether a handover command message for the first target base station has been stored (S511)”; [0112] “In case that the handover command message for the first target base station has been stored, the terminal may execute the handover to the first target base station (S512)”) (i.e., no measurement reporting has been performed hence it has been skipped).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]) as modified by SAILY to incorporate the condition for triggering the handover execution event, disclosed by PARK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the terminal may execute the handover to the first target base station (S512) when the handover command message for the first target base station has been stored, PARK ([0110]- [0112]).
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 16 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor, the computer program implements in a case that the trigger condition is not met, performing at least one of the following: skipping handing over to the SpCell; or performing measurement reporting, or skipping performing measurement reporting.
In the same field of endeavor, PARK discloses wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor , ([0021] “a terminal in a wireless communication system may comprise a processor, a memory storing at least one instruction executed by the processor...”), the computer program implements in a case that the trigger condition is not met (see FIG. 5B: S510-S513), performing at least one of the following: skipping handing over to the SpCell; or performing measurement reporting, ([see FIG. 5B: S513-S514] and [0113] “when the condition for triggering the handover execution event is not satisfied in the step S510, the terminal may determine whether a condition for triggering the handover preparation event is satisfied (S513); [0114] when the condition for triggering the handover preparation event is satisfied, the terminal may transmit a measurement report message to the serving base station (S514)”), or skipping performing measurement reporting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]), as modified by SAILY, to incorporate the condition for triggering the handover execution event, disclosed by PARK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the terminal may transmit a measurement report message to the serving base station (S514)”), PARK ([0113]- [0114]).
Claims 6-9 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG (US 20220022083 A1), in view of SAILY et al. (US 20210235333 A1), hereinafter SAILY, further in view of CHEN et al. (US 20230079794 A1), hereinafter CHEN.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose wherein the configuration information further comprises at least one of the following: that a trigger event or a trigger event index is associated with a candidate cell; that a trigger event or a trigger event index is associated with a candidate cell identifier; that a trigger event is associated with a first message.
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN disclose wherein the configuration information further comprises at least one of the following: that a trigger event or a trigger event index is associated with a candidate cell, [0069]- [0070] “The UE may start evaluating the execution condition(s) upon receiving the CHO configuration and may stop evaluating the execution condition(s) once the execution condition(s) is met. […] an execution condition may include, for example, A3/A5 events. […] an execution condition may include one or two trigger condition(s); [0089] “if a conditional reconfiguration command for PCell change is executed (e.g., an associated execution condition is satisfied) by a UE, the UE may stop evaluating the triggering condition of other candidate cell(s) during execution of the conditional reconfiguration for PCell change.”); that a trigger event or a trigger event index is associated with a candidate cell identifier; that a trigger event is associated with a first message,
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]) as modified by SAILY, to incorporate the CHO configuration, disclosed by CHEN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to assess if the execution condition is satisfied and the UE may cease performing unnecessary evaluation of the triggering condition of other candidate cell(s), CHEN ([0069]- [0070], [0089]).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 6 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose wherein the candidate cell is the same as a Spcell indicated by the first message; or the candidate cell identifier is the same as the SpCell identifier in the first message.
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN disclose wherein the candidate cell is the same as a Spcell indicated by the first message; or the candidate cell identifier is the same as the SpCell identifier in the first message, ([0109] “[…] the candidate cell is for PCell (which is equivalent to special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)) as interpreted in accordance with Applicant’s specification on page 6 lines 23-24 ("Both the PCell and the PSCell may also be referred to as special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)") change, the UE may detach from the source base station, apply the stored corresponding configuration for the selected candidate cell, and synchronize to that candidate 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 have modified the PCell, disclosed by YANG ([0118]) as modified by SAILY to integrate the candidate cell, (also referred to as a PCell or a first cell, hence SpCell) disclosed by CHEN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the UE may detach from the source base station, and synchronize to that selected PCell, CHEN ([0109]).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 6 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose wherein that a trigger event is associated with a first message comprises any one of the following: a trigger event index being associated with a first-message index; a trigger event index being associated with the first message; and the trigger event being associated with a first-message index.
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN discloses wherein that a trigger event is associated with a first message comprises any one of the following: a trigger event index being associated with a first-message index; a trigger event index being associated with the first message; and the trigger event being associated with a first-message index, (since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for steps written in the alternative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 6 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose wherein that a trigger event is associated with a first message comprises any one of the following association manners: the trigger event being in one-to-one correspondence to the first message; a radio resource control RRC message corresponding to the trigger event being configured with an information element IE of the first message; and the first message being configured with an IE of an RRC message corresponding to the trigger event.
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN discloses wherein that a trigger event is associated with a first message comprises any one of the following association manners: the trigger event being in one-to-one correspondence to the first message; a radio resource control RRC message corresponding to the trigger event being configured with an information element IE of the first message; and the first message being configured with an IE of an RRC message corresponding to the trigger event, (since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for steps written in the alternative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim).
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 11 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose wherein the configuration information further comprises at least one of the following: that a trigger event or a trigger event index is associated with a candidate cell; that a trigger event or a trigger event index is associated with a candidate cell identifier; that a trigger event is associated with a first message.
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN discloses wherein the configuration
information further comprises at least one of the following: that a trigger event or a trigger event index is associated with a candidate cell, ([0069]- [0070] “The UE may start evaluating the execution condition(s) upon receiving the CHO configuration and may stop evaluating the execution condition(s) once the execution condition(s) is met. […] an execution condition may include, for example, A3/A5 events. […] an execution condition may include one or two trigger condition(s); [0089] “if a conditional reconfiguration command for PCell change is executed (e.g., an associated execution condition is satisfied) by a UE, the UE may stop evaluating the triggering condition of other candidate cell(s) during execution of the conditional reconfiguration for PCell change.”); that a trigger event or a trigger event index is associated with a candidate cell identifier; that a trigger event is associated with a first message
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reporting trigger event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]) as modified by SAILY, to incorporate the CHO configuration, disclosed by CHEN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to assess if the execution condition is satisfied and the UE may cease performing unnecessary evaluation of the triggering condition of other candidate cell(s), CHEN ([0069]- [0070], [0089]).
Regarding claim 22, as applied to claim 21 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose wherein the candidate cell is the same as a Spcell indicated by the first message; or the candidate cell identifier is the same as the SpCell identifier in the first message.
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN discloses wherein the candidate cell is the same as a Spcell indicated by the first message; or the candidate cell identifier is the same as the SpCell identifier in the first message, ([0109] “[…] the candidate cell is for PCell (which is equivalent to special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)) as interpreted in accordance with Applicant’s specification on page 6 lines 23-24 ("Both the PCell and the PSCell may also be referred to as special cells (Special Cell, SpCell)") change, the UE may detach from the source base station, apply the stored corresponding configuration for the selected candidate cell, and synchronize to that candidate 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 have modified the PCell, disclosed by YANG ([0118]) as modified by SAILY to integrate the candidate cell, (also referred to as a PCell or a first cell, hence SpCell) disclosed by CHEN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the UE may detach from the source base station, and synchronize to that selected PCell, CHEN ([0109]).
Regarding claim 23, as applied to claim 21 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose wherein that a trigger event is associated with a first message comprises any one of the following: a trigger event index being associated with a first-message index; a trigger event index being associated with the first message; and the trigger event being associated with a first-message index.
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN discloses wherein that a trigger event is associated with a first message comprises any one of the following: a trigger event index being associated with a first-message index; a trigger event index being associated with the first message; and the trigger event being associated with a first-message index, (since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for steps written in the alternative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim).
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 21 above, YANG as modified by SAILY does not disclose wherein that a trigger event is associated with a first message comprises any one of the following association manners: the trigger event being in one-to-one correspondence to the first message; an RRC message corresponding to the trigger event being configured with an IE of the first message; and the first message being configured with an IE of an RRC message corresponding to the trigger event.
In the same field of endeavor, CHEN discloses wherein that a trigger event is associated with a first message comprises any one of the following association manners: the trigger event being in one-to-one correspondence to the first message; an RRC message corresponding to the trigger event being configured with an IE of the first message; and the first message being configured with an IE of an RRC message corresponding to the trigger event, (since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for steps written in the alternative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG (US 20220022083 A1), in view of SAILY et al. (US 20210235333 A1), hereinafter SAILY, further in view of CHEN et al. (US 20230079794 A1), hereinafter CHEN, and further in view of PARK et al. (US 20190028938 A1), hereinafter PARK.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 6 above, YANG as modified by SAILY and CHEN does not disclose, wherein the first message comprises any one of the following: an RRC reconfiguration message, an RRC synchronization reconfiguration message, a handover command, and mobile control information.
In the same field of endeavor, PARK discloses wherein the first message
comprises any one of the following: an RRC reconfiguration message ([0057] “when the handover preparation response message includes the information indicating that the handover of the terminal is accepted, the serving base station may transmit to the terminal a handover command message instructing the handover. Here, the handover command message may be a radio resource control (RRC) connection reconfiguration message”), an RRC synchronization reconfiguration message, a handover command, and mobile control information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reporting trigger
event, disclosed by YANG ([0118]), as modified by SAILY and CHEN, to incorporate the handover preparation response message, disclosed by PARK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the serving base station may transmit to the terminal a handover command message (which may be a RRC connection reconfiguration message, PARK ([0057]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 16, 20, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT GRANT whose telephone number is (703)756-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 7:00 pm, Monday - Thursday.
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 on 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.
/GILBERT M. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights