DETAILED ACTION
RCE
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
The following amendment is proposed by examiner in order to place the claims in condition for allowance and thereby expedite prosecution.
An amendment to independent claim 1 by overcoming the claim objections and incorporating the limitations: “determining the UE context request message includes a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure; generating, based the conditional indication, configuration information related to the conditional procedure, including generating a cell group configuration; determining the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and determining the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information, generating, based on the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure” and wherein “generating of the configuration information related to the conditional procedure includes generating the cell group configuration information with a reconfiguration with sync information element (IE) or field; and the generating of the configuration information related to the immediate procedure includes generating a cell group configuration with a reconfiguration with sync IE or field” would place claim 1 in condition for allowance. Independent claims 7 and 13 can be amended incorporating similar limitations.
Applicant is invited to contact examiner to discuss the proposed amendments and/or the rejection.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 7, 13, 19 and 20 are objected to because they include the phrase “when”. The phrases “in case”, “when”, “if” and “in response to" make the claims elements conditional.
A conditional limitation is a claim feature that depends on a certain condition being present. For example, when or if condition X is present, feature Y is implemented or has effect. Without condition X, feature Y may be dormant or have no effect. Applicant should be cognizant of possible conditional limitations implications because conditional limitations may affect claim validity and infringement. In this case, the limitation “if dedicated resource information for the paging signaling is received from the base station” in claims 15 is conditional, thus, the remainder of claim limitations may not happen. See In Ex Parte Schulhauser, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) held certain claims as unpatentable based on conditional limitations. Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). The claimed subject matter related to “medical devices for monitoring physiological conditions and, in some embodiments, to a minimally invasive implantable device for monitoring a physiological conditions [sic] and detecting the onset of a critical cardiac event such as a myocardial infarction.” U.S. Patent No. 5987352 (filed July 31, 2008). The Board evaluated the effect of conditional limitations on independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 11. Schulhauser at 1. Specifically, the phrases “when the UE context request message includes a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure, generating, in response to the conditional indication, configuration information related to the conditional procedure including generating a cell group configuration” and “when the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and if the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information, generating, in response to the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure; and transmitting, to the CU, a UE context response message including the configuration information” in claim 1 are conditional. Claims 7 and 13 recite analogous features. Further, claim 19 and 20 are objected to because they depend on the conditional limitations of claims 1 and 7 respectively.
Applicant is required to amend the claims so the claims are presented in positive steps by changing the phrases “in case”, when”, “if” or “in response" to phrases such as “after determining … based on”.
Applicant is invited to call the examiner and discuss this matter with the examiner.
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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 11, 13-15, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki (US 2022/0086704) in view of Chang (US 2021/0337443).
Referring to claim 1:
Futaki discloses a method in a distributed unit, DU, of a distributed base station, for configuring a user equipment (UE) (FIG. 5, FIG. 6, Par. 55, “NR gNodeB (gNB)) includes . . . Distributed Units (DUs)”, note figure 5 illustrates the DUs (Distributed Units) communicating with the central unit (CU). Figure 6 illustrates the method of in DU, e.g., Target DU 22B which receives UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message from CU and configures the UE based on this request, as described in Par. 61, “UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to the target DU 22B”. With regard to base station, the gNodeB (gNB) is equivalent to the base station),
the method comprising:
receiving from a central unit, CU, (FIG. 5, DU 22, FIG. 6, “target DU”, note that the DU is an element of a base station (or eNodeB) and it receives electrical signals from CU and it responds to it in step 602, thus, it includes a processor. Par. 61, STEP 601,“the CU 21 sends a UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to the target DU 22B”, note that the DU receives the message from CU, as step 601 indicates), of the distributed base station (FIG. 5, Par. 55, “a RAN node (e.g., eNB or NR gNodeB (gNB)) includes a Central Unit (CU) and one or more Distributed Units (DUs)”, note that as illustrated in figure 5 CU is part of a gNB which is equivalent to base station. Further in cellular system, gNBs are distributed nodes), a UE context request message (Par. 61, “UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST”, “UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to the target DU 22B”, note the UE context request message is explicitly transmitted to the DU from CU);
when the UE context request message includes a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure (FIG. 6, step 601, Par. 61, “CONDITIONAL PSCELL CHANGE REQUEST”. Par. 62, “In response to receiving the conditional PSCell Change request, the target DU 22B may determine whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable”. Firstly, note that the claim limitation is conditional because the word “when” before the limitation makes it conditional, thus, the limitation following the when statement may not happen. Thus, the prior art doesn’t need to disclose the limitation following the when statement. Further, note that the “CONDITIONAL PSCELL CHANGE” is equivalent to “conditional indication related to conditional procedure”. Also see Par. 64, “the CU 21 may determine the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change and include it in the CG-ConfigInfo information element or a new information element contained in the UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message (step 601). The target DU 22B may then generate a radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change”. It is noted that the DU receives conditional PSCELL change requests and then it changes procedures, thus it is equivalent to conditional indication related to a conditional procedure), generating, in response to the conditional indication, configuration information related to the conditional procedure (Par. Par. 61 and 64, “The target DU 22B may then generate a radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change and include it in the UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message (step 602)”, note that the target DU generates a radio resource configuration containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change. This a radio resource configuration indicating the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change is equivalent to configuration information. Further, because the generating by DU is in response to conditional procedure request message from CU, thus, it is related to the conditional procedure which was sent by CU. Further, note that the limitation is conditional because it follows a “when” statement), including generating a cell group configuration (Par. 64, “e.g., CellGroupConfig”, “The target DU 22B may then generate a radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change and include it in the UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message (step 602)”); and
transmitting, to the CU, a UE context response message including the configuration information (Par. 62, FIG. 6, step 602, “In response to receiving the conditional PSCell Change request, the target DU 22B may determine whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable. The target DU 22B may include in the UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message an information element indicating whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable”, note that the target DU 22B responds to the CU by transmitting a UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message).
Futaki is silent on the claim language: when the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and if the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information, generating, in response to the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure.
However, the concept of a UE context request message to include a handover preparation information, and generating, in response to the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure is well-known, as disclosed by Chang below. Further, it is noted that this is a conditional limitation because the claim language includes the phrase two conditional phrases. The phrases “when the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and “if the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information”. Therefore, the limitation “UE context request message includes a handover preparation information” may not happen at all, thus, the response to it may not happen either and the prior art is not required to show the conditional limitation.
In an analogous art, Chang discloses when the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and if the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information, generating, in response to the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure (Par. 53, 62, “handover configuration refers to an RRC configuration generated by the UE according to the configuration in the handover command. Optionally, the handover configuration refers to an RRC configuration generated by the UE according to the configuration in the handover command and a current RRC configuration of the UE. The first condition refers to a handover condition. That is, only when the first condition is met would the UE perform a handover and apply the handover configuration generated on the basis of the handover command”, note that the handover command transmitted to the UE commands the UE to prepare for handover, thus, the handover command is equivalent to handover preparation message. Further, note that the UE responsive to handover command the UE generates RRC configuration which is equivalent to “configuration information related to an immediate procedure”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Futaki by incorporating the teachings of Chang for the purpose of providing coordination between the UE and thus allowing the UE to be prepared for the handoff and expedite the handoff procedure. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the UE context request message includes receiving a UE Context Setup Request message (Futaki, Par. 61, FIG. 6, step 601, “UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message”, “CU 21 sends a UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to the target DU 22B”).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the UE context request message includes receiving a UE Context Modification Request message (Futaki, FIG. 6, step 604, Par. 68, “the CU 21 sends a UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST message to the source DU 22A. The message includes an indication of the conditional PSCell change”, note that the CU 21 explicitly transmits the UE context modification request message).
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conditional procedure is conditional Primary Secondary Cell, PSCell, change (Futaki, FIG. 6, step 601, “CONDITIONAL PSCELL CHANGE”. Par. 61, “CU 21 sends a UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to the target DU 22B”, “The UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message may … indicate that it is a conditional PSCell change request”).
Referring to claim 7, Futaki discloses a method in a central unit, CU, of a distributed base station, for configuring a user equipment, UE (FIG. 5, FIG. 6, Par. 55, “NR gNodeB (gNB)) includes . . . Distributed Units (DUs)”, note figure 5 illustrates the DUs (Distributed Units) communicating with the central unit (CU). Figure 6 illustrates the method of in DU, e.g., Target DU 22B which receives UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message from CU and configures the UE based on this request, as described in Par. 61, “UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to the target DU 22B), the method comprising:
transmitting to a distributed unit, DU, of the distributed base station (FIG. 5, DU 22, FIG. 6, “target DU”, note that the CU is an element of a base station (or eNodeB) and it receives and transmits electrical signals as illustrated in steps 601 and 602, thus, it includes a processor),
a UE context request message (Par. 61, “UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST”, “UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to the target DU 22B”, note the UE context request message is explicitly transmitted to the DU from CU) including a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure (FIG. 6, step 601, Par. 61, “CONDITIONAL PSCELL CHANGE REQUEST”. Par. 62, “In response to receiving the conditional PSCell Change request, the target DU 22B may determine whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable”, note that the “CONDITIONAL PSCELL CHANGE” is equivalent to conditional indication related to conditional procedure. Also see Par. 64, “the CU 21 may determine the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change and include it in the CG-ConfigInfo information element or a new information element contained in the UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message (step 601). The target DU 22B may then generate a radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change”. It is noted that the DU receives conditional PSCELL change requests and then it changes procedures, thus it is equivalent to conditional indication related to a conditional procedure); and
receiving in response to the transmitting, a UE context response message including configuration information (Par. 62, FIG. 6, step 602, “In response to receiving the conditional PSCell Change request, the target DU 22B may determine whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable. The target DU 22B may include in the UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message an information element indicating whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable”, note that the target DU 22B responds to the CU by transmitting a UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message) related to the conditional procedure, the configuration information including a cell group configuration (Par. 64, “The target DU 22B may then generate a radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change and include it in the UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message (step 602)”, note that the target DU generates a radio resource configuration containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change. This a radio resource configuration indicating the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change is equivalent to configuration information. Further, because the generating by DU is in response to conditional procedure request message from CU, thus, it is related to the conditional procedure which was sent by CU); when the UE context request message includes a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure (FIG. 6, step 601, Par. 61, “CONDITIONAL PSCELL CHANGE REQUEST”. Par. 62, “In response to receiving the conditional PSCell Change request, the target DU 22B may determine whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable”, note that the “CONDITIONAL PSCELL CHANGE” is equivalent to “conditional indication related to conditional procedure”. Also see Par. 64, “the CU 21 may determine the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change and include it in the CG-ConfigInfo information element or a new information element contained in the UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message (step 601). The target DU 22B may then generate a radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change”. It is noted that the DU receives conditional PSCELL change requests and then it changes procedures, thus it is equivalent to conditional indication related to a conditional procedure), generating, in response to the conditional indication, configuration information related to the conditional procedure (Par. Par. 61 and 64, “The target DU 22B may then generate a radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change and include it in the UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message (step 602)”, note that the target DU generates a radio resource configuration containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change. This a radio resource configuration indicating the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change is equivalent to configuration information. Further, because the generating by DU is in response to conditional procedure request message from CU, thus, it is related to the conditional procedure which was sent by CU),
including generating a cell group configuration (Par. 64, “e.g., CellGroupConfig”, “The target DU 22B may then generate a radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) containing the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change and include it in the UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message (step 602)”); and
transmitting, to the CU, a UE context response message including the configuration information (Par. 62, FIG. 6, step 602, “In response to receiving the conditional PSCell Change request, the target DU 22B may determine whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable. The target DU 22B may include in the UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message an information element indicating whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable”, note that the target DU 22B responds to the CU by transmitting a UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message).
Futaki is silent on the claim language: when the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and if the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information, generating, in response to the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure.
However, the concept of a UE context request message to include a handover preparation information, and generating, in response to the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure is well-known, as disclosed by Chang below. Further, it is noted that this is a conditional limitation because the claim language includes the phrase “when the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and if the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information”. Therefore, the limitation “UE context request message includes a handover preparation information” may not happen at all, thus, the response to it may not happen either.
In an analogous art, Chang discloses when the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and if the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information, generating, in response to the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure (Par. 53, 62, “handover configuration refers to an RRC configuration generated by the UE according to the configuration in the handover command. Optionally, the handover configuration refers to an RRC configuration generated by the UE according to the configuration in the handover command and a current RRC configuration of the UE. The first condition refers to a handover condition. That is, only when the first condition is met would the UE perform a handover and apply the handover configuration generated on the basis of the handover command”, note that the handover command transmitted to the UE commands the UE to prepare for handover, thus, the handover command is equivalent to handover preparation message. Further, note that the UE responsive to handover command the UE generates RRC configuration which is equivalent to “configuration information related to an immediate procedure”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Futaki by incorporating the teachings of Chang for the purpose of providing coordination between the UE and thus allowing the UE to be prepared for the handoff and expedite the handoff procedure. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein transmitting the UE context request message includes receiving a UE Context Setup Request message (Futaki, Par. 61, FIG. 6, step 601, “UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message”, “CU 21 sends a UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to the target DU 22B”).
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein receiving the UE context request message includes receiving a UE Context Modification Request message (Futaki, FIG. 6, step 604, Par. 68, “the CU 21 sends a UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST message to the source DU 22A. The message includes an indication of the conditional PSCell change”, note that the CU 21 explicitly transmits the UE context modification request message).
Claim 11 recites features analogous to the features of claim 5, thus, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 13-15 recite features analogous to the features of claims 1-3 respectively, thus, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 17 recites features analogous to the features of claim 5, thus, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Referring to claim 19, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses the generating of the configuration information related to the conditional procedure includes generating the cell group configuration information with a reconfiguration with sync information element (IE) or field; and the generating of the configuration information related to the immediate procedure includes generating a cell group configuration with a reconfiguration with sync IE or field (Futaki, FIG. 6, step 601, Par. 61, “CONDITIONAL PSCELL CHANGE REQUEST”. Par. 62, “In response to receiving the conditional PSCell Change request, the target DU 22B may determine whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable”. Firstly, note that the claim limitation is conditional because it depends on a conditional limitation portion of claim 1 and the conditional limitation portion may not happen because it depends on a when scenario. the phrases “when the UE context request message includes a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure, generating, in response to the conditional indication, configuration information related to the conditional procedure including generating a cell group configuration” and “when the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and if the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information, generating, in response to the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure; and transmitting, to the CU, a UE context response message including the configuration information” are conditional. Thus, the prior art doesn’t need to disclose the limitation following the when statement.).
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 7, and further discloses the receiving of the configuration information related to the conditional procedure includes receiving the cell group configuration with a reconfiguration with sync IE or field; and the receiving of the configuration information related to the immediate procedure includes receiving a cell group configuration with a reconfiguration with sync IE or field (Futaki, FIG. 6, step 601, Par. 61, “CONDITIONAL PSCELL CHANGE REQUEST”. Par. 62, “In response to receiving the conditional PSCell Change request, the target DU 22B may determine whether the conditional PSCell Change is acceptable”. Firstly, note that the claim limitation is conditional because it depends on a conditional limitation portion of claim 1 and the conditional limitation portion may not happen because it depends on a when scenario. the phrases “when the UE context request message includes a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure, generating, in response to the conditional indication, configuration information related to the conditional procedure including generating a cell group configuration” and “when the UE context request message does not include a conditional indication related to a conditional procedure and if the UE context request message includes a handover preparation information, generating, in response to the handover preparation information, configuration information related to an immediate procedure; and transmitting, to the CU, a UE context response message including the configuration information” are conditional. Thus, the prior art doesn’t need to disclose the limitation following the when statement).
Claim(s) 4,10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki (US 2022/0086704) in view of Chang (US 2021/0337443) and further in view of Futaki (US 20220070740, hereinafter, Futaki-2).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the claim language: wherein the conditional procedure is conditional handover.
In an analogous art, Futaki-2 discloses receiving the DU conditional procedure including conditional handover (Par. 72, “the CU of the source RAN node 1 may send, to the DU of the source RAN node 1, information which explicitly or implicitly indicates that a conditional handover instruction”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Futaki-2, so that conditional handover procedures are used by DU, for the purpose of providing efficient handovers where handover would be conditional on degree of signal improvement. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claims 10 and 16 recite features analogous to the features of claim 4, thus, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki (US 2022/0086704) in view of Chang (US 2021/0337443) and further in view of CHEN (US 2020/0059395).
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 1. The combination is not relied on for claim language: “further comprising: including a reconfiguration with sync indication in the cell group configuration”.
In an analogous art, CHEN discloses further comprising: including a reconfiguration with sync indication in the cell group configuration ( Par. 71, “receiving an RRC Reconfiguration message (e.g., with reconfigurationWithSync, or a synchronous reconfiguration to a target cell) for the corresponding cell group”, note that “RRC Reconfiguration message (e.g., with reconfigurationWithSync, or a synchronous reconfiguration) is equivalent to a reconfiguration with sync indication. Further note that it corresponds to the cell group, thus it is in the cell group configuration).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of CHEN, so that reconfiguration message includes a sync indication, for the purpose of providing synchronization among the network nodes. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Futaki/Chang discloses the method of claim 7. The combination is not relied on for claim language: wherein the configuration information includes a reconfiguration with sync indication.
In an analogous art, CHEN discloses the configuration information includes a reconfiguration with sync indication (Par. 71, “receiving an RRC Reconfiguration message (e.g., with reconfigurationWithSync, or a synchronous reconfiguration to a target cell) for the corresponding cell group”, note that “RRC Reconfiguration message (e.g., with reconfigurationWithSync, or a synchronous reconfiguration) is equivalent to a reconfiguration with sync indication. Further note that it corresponds to the cell group, thus it is in the cell group configuration).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of CHEN, so that reconfiguration message includes a sync indication, for the purpose of providing synchronization among the network nodes. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim 18 recites features analogous to the features of claim 6, thus, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant is invited to contact examiner and discus claim amendments during an interview in order to place claims in condition for allowance and thereby expedite prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED A CASCA whose telephone number is (571)272-7918. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 to 5. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at (571) 270-5371. 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).
/FRED A CASCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644