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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant Arguments/REMARKS correspondence filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, & 14-19 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant's Arguments/REMARKS, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, & 14-19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of further search and inquiry.
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.
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 1-2, 4, & 11-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro et al (US 20180332507A1) in view of Tao et al (EP3799470A1) (2019)), in further view of Rastegardoost et al (US20200314913A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujishiro teaches a method comprising:
receiving a configuration by a User Equipment (UE) in a serving cell of a mobile communication network, wherein the configuration comprises information for performing a random-access channel (RACH) procedure with a neighbor cell ([0031], [0099]-[0107], UE receives instruction information for a pre-RACH to the target cell, which in the sixth embodiment becomes an active cell via temporary DC, further explanation that the source eNB sends RRC containers with information needed fore HO), wherein the neighbor cell belongs to a set of active cells configured by the network ([0031], [0099]-[0107], UE receives instruction information for a pre-RACH to the target cell, which in the sixth embodiment becomes an active cell via temporary DC, further explanation that the source eNB sends RRC containers with information needed for HO);
receiving the handover command from the network to handover from the serving cell to the neighbor cell, wherein the UE acquires the TA of the neighbor cell before receiving the handover command ([0031], [0103]-[0107], UE performs pre-RACH and obtains TA before actual handover; describes sequence where HO decision and request occur after measurement report and capability information; [0027] also describes TA or TA group identifier included in HO command; further in [0107]-[0112], HO command delivered after HO request/ACK exchange),
But Fujishiro fails to teach and completing the handover to the neighbor cell without performing RACH procedure after receiving the handover command.
However, Tao teaches and completing the handover to the neighbor cell without performing RACH procedure after receiving the handover command ([0066]-[0067], [0069]-[0073] HO prep and command from source to target (decision and HO request/ack, UE is instructed through a HO command message to switch from the source to target cell…UE perfrms the reconfiguration and attaches to target; RACH-less (not initiated) HO then UE conforming the HO to target cell, by transmitting the HO confirm message using UL resources indicated in HO command; furthermore [0074]-[0075], HO command includes an indication (UL grant and/or bits) telling the UE whether to perform RACH-less or legacy HO; [0076]-[0077], UE does not initiate the usual RACH procedure, thus not transmitting the random access preamble…the UE is not required to perform the random access procedure (or at least to perform the full random access procedure).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fujishiro with Tao because such combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure. Fujishiro discloses a HO framework in which the UE performs a pre-random-access procedure toward the neighbor/target cell and receives a HO command that includes information indicating omission of a RACH procedure, thereby reducing HO delay. Tao further teaches that upon receiving the HO command, the UE does not initiate the usually RACH procedure, and instead completes the HO by transmitting the HO confirmation using UL resources indicated in the HO command. Because both references address the same technical problem—reducing HO interruption time and signaling overhead—and employ compatible NR HO signaling architectures, a POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s post-HO command RACH-skipping behavior into Fujishiro’s pre-RACH HO sequence as a predictable and routine optimization. Such a combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure.
However, Tao fails but Rastegardoost teaches performing the RACH procedure with the neighbor cell and acquiring a timing advance (TA) of the neighbor cell before receiving a handover command ([[0368], [0400], teaches that during handover, the UE performs access procedures with the target cell and obtains timing advance before handover completion; further explains that after receiving the HO command, the UE accesses the target cell via RACH and the target BS responds with UL allocation and TA; further teaches that the TA of the target cell may be provided in the HO command itself, allowing the UE to omit the PRACH preamble so that MSgA consists only of PUSCH payload, thereby supporting an early RACH/RACH-less procedure where TA is acquired before full HO completion) wherein the RACH procedure with the neighbor cell is triggered by a physical downlink control channel (PDDCH) order ([0246], [0278], [0342]-[0343], [0350], teaches that random access (RA) and UL grants are controlled through PDCCH/DCI signaling; states that the MAC entity starts the RA response procedure at a “first PDCCH occasion” and monitors the PDCCH for RA response messages identified by the RA-RNTI; the RAR includes the TA command; further teaches that “the base station may transmit DCI/control signaling via PDDCH,” and specifically that “a DCI may be used by BS to initiate a contention-free RA at the wireless device), and
wherein the RACH procedure is triggered by a downlink control information (DCI) field of a PDDCH order ([0226], [0246], [0278], [0342]-[0343], [0350], explicitly states that PDDCH carries DCI and that such DCI is used to initiate contention-free RA; further explains that PDCCH may carry DCI, further stating that “a DCI may be used by BS to initiate a contention-free RA at the wireless device; because the DCI is conveyed through the PDCCH and is expressly used to initiate RA).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fujishiro with Tao because such combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure. Fujishiro discloses a HO framework in which the UE performs a pre-random-access procedure toward the neighbor/target cell and receives a HO command that includes information indicating omission of a RACH procedure, thereby reducing HO delay. Tao further teaches that upon receiving the HO command, the UE does not initiate the usually RACH procedure, and instead completes the HO by transmitting the HO confirmation using UL resources indicated in the HO command. Lastly, Rastagardoost teaches early handover access proceduresin which a UE performs RACH or RACH-less access with a target cell, acquires TA from the target cell—either through RACH response or directly in the HO command—and may trigger the procedure using PDCCH-carried DCI for contention-free RA. Because the references address the same technical problem—reducing HO interruption time and signaling overhead—and employ compatible NR HO signaling architectures, a POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s post-HO command RACH-skipping behavior into Fujishiro’s pre-RACH HO sequence as a predictable and routine optimization. Such a combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Fujishiro discloses the method wherein the RACH procedure with the neighbor cell is configured and triggered by a radio resource control (RRC) signaling. ([0013], [0046], [0190], RRC configured and RRC triggered RACH towards the neighbor/target cell).
Regarding claim 4, Fujishiro teaches to teach wherein the UE performs the RACH procedure with the neighbor cell and communicates with the serving cell in parallel ([0184], in order to perform the pre-random access procedure, a state where tehr DC is temporarily performed is created).
Regarding claim 11, Fujishiro teaches user equipment (UE) comprising:
a receiver that receives a configuration in a serving cell of a mobile communication network, wherein the configuration comprises information for performing a random-access channel (RACH) procedure with a neighbor cell ) ([0031], [0099]-[0107], UE receives instruction information for a pre-RACH to the target cell, which in the sixth embodiment becomes an active cell via temporary DC, further explanation that the source eNB sends RRC containers with information needed fore HO), wherein the neighbor cell belongs to a set of active cells configured by the network ([0031], [0099]-[0107], UE receives instruction information for a pre-RACH to the target cell, which in the sixth embodiment becomes an active cell via temporary DC, further explanation that the source eNB sends RRC containers with information needed for HO)), wherein the neighbor cell belongs to a set of active cells configured by the network ([0031], [0099]-[0107], UE receives instruction information for a pre-RACH to the target cell, which in the sixth embodiment becomes an active cell via temporary DC, further explanation that the source eNB sends RRC containers with information needed for HO;
and a handover handling circuit that receives a handover command from the network to handover from the serving cell to the neighbor cell, wherein the UE acquires the TA of the neighbor cell before receiving the handover command (([0031], [0103]-[0107], UE performs pre-RACH and obtains TA before actual handover; describes sequence where HO decision and request occur after measurement report and capability information; [0027] also describes TA or TA group identifier included in HO command; further in [0107]-[0112], HO command delivered after HO request/ACK exchange)),
But Fujishiro fails to teach and wherein the UE completes the handover to the neighbor cell without performing additional RACH procedure after receiving the handover command.
However, Tao teaches and wherein the UE completes the handover to the neighbor cell without performing additional RACH procedure after receiving the handover command ([0066]-[0067], [0069]-[0073] HO prep and command from source to target (decision and HO request/ack, UE is instructed through a HO command message to switch from the source to target cell…UE perfrms the reconfiguration and attaches to target; RACH-less (not initiated) HO then UE conforming the HO to target cell, by transmitting the HO confirm message using UL resources indicated in HO command; furthermore [0074]-[0075], HO command includes an indication (UL grant and/or bits) telling the UE whether to perform RACH-less or legacy HO; [0076]-[0077], UE does not initiate the usual RACH procedure, thus not transmitting the random access preamble…the UE is not required to perform the random access procedure (or at least to perform the full random access procedure).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fujishiro with Tao because such combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure. Fujishiro discloses a HO framework in which the UE performs a pre-random-access procedure toward the neighbor/target cell and receives a HO command that includes information indicating omission of a RACH procedure, thereby reducing HO delay. Tao further teaches that upon receiving the HO command, the UE does not initiate the usually RACH procedure, and instead completes the HO by transmitting the HO confirmation using UL resources indicated in the HO command. Because both references address the same technical problem—reducing HO interruption time and signaling overhead—and employ compatible NR HO signaling architectures, a POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s post-HO command RACH-skipping behavior into Fujishiro’s pre-RACH HO sequence as a predictable and routine optimization. Such a combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure.
However, Tao fails to teach but Rastagerdoost teaches a RACH handling circuit that performs the RACH procedure with the neighbor cell and acquiring a timing advance (TA) of the neighbor cell before receiving a handover command ([[0368], [0400], teaches that during handover, the UE performs access procedures with the target cell and obtains timing advance before handover completion; further explains that after receiving the HO command, the UE accesses the target cell via RACH and the target BS responds with UL allocation and TA; further teaches that the TA of the target cell may be provided in the HO command itself, allowing the UE to omit the PRACH preamble so that MSgA consists only of PUSCH payload, thereby supporting an early RACH/RACH-less procedure where TA is acquired before full HO completion), wherein the RACH procedure with the neighbor cell is triggered by a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order ([0246], [0350], teaches that random access (RA) and UL grants are controlled through PDCCH/DCI signaling; states that the MAC entity starts the RA response procedure at a “first PDCCH occasion” and monitors the PDCCH for RA response messages identified by the RA-RNTI; the RAR includes the TA command; further teaches that “the base station may transmit DCI/control signaling via PDDCH,” and specifically that “a DCI may be used by BS to initiate a contention-free RA at the wireless device), and wherein the RACH procedure is triggered by a downlink control information (DCI) field of a PDCCH order ([0226], [0246], explicitly states that PDDCH carries DCI and that such DCI is used to initiate contention-free RA; further explains that PDCCH may carry DCI, further stating that “a DCI may be used by BS to initiate a contention-free RA at the wireless device; because the DCI is conveyed through the PDCCH and is expressly used to initiate RA).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fujishiro with Tao because such combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure. Fujishiro discloses a HO framework in which the UE performs a pre-random-access procedure toward the neighbor/target cell and receives a HO command that includes information indicating omission of a RACH procedure, thereby reducing HO delay. Tao further teaches that upon receiving the HO command, the UE does not initiate the usually RACH procedure, and instead completes the HO by transmitting the HO confirmation using UL resources indicated in the HO command. Lastly, Rastagardoost teaches early handover access proceduresin which a UE performs RACH or RACH-less access with a target cell, acquires TA from the target cell—either through RACH response or directly in the HO command—and may trigger the procedure using PDCCH-carried DCI for contention-free RA. Because the references address the same technical problem—reducing HO interruption time and signaling overhead—and employ compatible NR HO signaling architectures, a POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s post-HO command RACH-skipping behavior into Fujishiro’s pre-RACH HO sequence as a predictable and routine optimization. Such a combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure.
Regarding claim 12, Fujishiro discloses the UE wherein the RACH procedure with the neighbor cell is configured and triggered by a radio resource control (RRC) signaling. ([0013], [0046], [0190], RRC configured and RRC triggered RACH towards the neighbor/target cell).
Regarding claim 14, Fujishiro teaches to teach wherein the UE performs the RACH procedure with the neighbor cell and communicates with the serving cell in parallel ([0184], in order to perform the pre-random access procedure, a state where the DC is temporarily performed is created).
Claims 5-6 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro in view of Tao, in further view of Rastegardoost, in further view of Pelletier et al (EP3509362A1) (2015).
Regarding claim 15 (and method claim 5), Fujishiro and Tao fail to teach the UE wherein a TX power for the neighbor cell and for the serving cell are scaled down based on the same or different scaling factors.
However, Pelletier teaches the UE wherein a TX power for the neighbor cell and for the serving cell are scaled down based on the same or different scaling factors ([0200], [0342], & claim 8 language; WRTU performing simultaneous UL transmission for a MCG and a SCG in the same time interval, determining separate power levels per cell group and then scaling them when the total exceeds a maximum transmit power; scaling is done via “scaling procedure” and scaling weights producing scaled power levels with power sharing across cell groups and different scaling options).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fujishiro with Tao because such combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure. Fujishiro discloses a HO framework in which the UE performs a pre-random-access procedure toward the neighbor/target cell and receives a HO command that includes information indicating omission of a RACH procedure, thereby reducing HO delay. Tao further teaches that upon receiving the HO command, the UE does not initiate the usually RACH procedure, and instead completes the HO by transmitting the HO confirmation using UL resources indicated in the HO command. Lastly, Rastagardoost teaches early handover access proceduresin which a UE performs RACH or RACH-less access with a target cell, acquires TA from the target cell—either through RACH response or directly in the HO command—and may trigger the procedure using PDCCH-carried DCI for contention-free RA. Because the references address the same technical problem—reducing HO interruption time and signaling overhead—and employ compatible NR HO signaling architectures, a POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s post-HO command RACH-skipping behavior into Fujishiro’s pre-RACH HO sequence as a predictable and routine optimization. Such a combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure.
Regarding claim 16 (and method claim 6), Fujishiro and Tao fail to teach the UE wherein the UE prioritizes between the RACH transmission on the neighbor cell and the uplink transmission on the serving cell.
However, Pelletier teaches the UE wherein the UE prioritizes between the RACH transmission on the neighbor cell and the uplink transmission on the serving cell (([0200], [0342]-[0343], & claim 8 language; priority-based power allocation when multiple uplink transmissions (for different cell groups/MAC instances) complete for a limited total power. It discusses defining a priority order based on type of physical channel, cell group, and network indications, and then scaling transmissions accordingly).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fujishiro with Tao because such combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure. Fujishiro discloses a HO framework in which the UE performs a pre-random-access procedure toward the neighbor/target cell and receives a HO command that includes information indicating omission of a RACH procedure, thereby reducing HO delay. Tao further teaches that upon receiving the HO command, the UE does not initiate the usually RACH procedure, and instead completes the HO by transmitting the HO confirmation using UL resources indicated in the HO command. Lastly, Rastagardoost teaches early handover access procedures in which a UE performs RACH or RACH-less access with a target cell, acquires TA from the target cell—either through RACH response or directly in the HO command—and may trigger the procedure using PDCCH-carried DCI for contention-free RA. Because the references address the same technical problem—reducing HO interruption time and signaling overhead—and employ compatible NR HO signaling architectures, a POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s post-HO command RACH-skipping behavior into Fujishiro’s pre-RACH HO sequence as a predictable and routine optimization. Such a combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure.
Claims 7, 9 & 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro in view of Tao applied to claim 1 and in further view of Zhang et al (US8369209B2).
Regarding claim 17 (and method claim 7), Fujishiro and Tao fail to teach wherein the UE performing the RACH with the neighbor cell using scheduling gaps in the serving cell.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the UE performing the RACH with the neighbor cell using scheduling gaps in the serving cell. (col 4 lines 50-59, col 6 lines 24-31, col 7 lines 4-17, UE performs RA while the serving cell is in a gap period, the UE conducts RACH operations in the time segments created by the gaps (i.e. RACH occurs using scheduling gaps).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fujishiro with Tao because such combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure. Fujishiro discloses a HO framework in which the UE performs a pre-random-access procedure toward the neighbor/target cell and receives a HO command that includes information indicating omission of a RACH procedure, thereby reducing HO delay. Tao further teaches that upon receiving the HO command, the UE does not initiate the usually RACH procedure, and instead completes the HO by transmitting the HO confirmation using UL resources indicated in the HO command. Rastagardoost teaches early handover access proceduresin which a UE performs RACH or RACH-less access with a target cell, acquires TA from the target cell—either through RACH response or directly in the HO command—and may trigger the procedure using PDCCH-carried DCI for contention-free RA. Lastly, Zhang teaches RACH operations in time segments created by the gaps (i.e. RACH occurring using scheduling gaps). Because both references address the same technical problem—reducing HO interruption time and signaling overhead—and employ compatible NR HO signaling architectures, a POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s post-HO command RACH-skipping behavior into Fujishiro’s pre-RACH HO sequence as a predictable and routine optimization. Such a combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure.
Regarding claim 19 (and method claim 9), Fujishiro and Tao fail to teach wherein the UE monitors activity of the serving cell between the gaps.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the UE monitors activity of the serving cell between the gaps. (col 3 lines 15-34, col 4 lines 21-32, col 10 lines 15-25, col 11 lines 24-36, col 13 lines 33-40, monitoring operations take place outside the gap periods, thereby showing monitoring between gaps, terminal reactivates the measurement gap after receiving a random access response message—meaning between gaps, the UE performs DL monitoring, including PDCCH).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fujishiro with Tao because such combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure. Fujishiro discloses a HO framework in which the UE performs a pre-random-access procedure toward the neighbor/target cell and receives a HO command that includes information indicating omission of a RACH procedure, thereby reducing HO delay. Tao further teaches that upon receiving the HO command, the UE does not initiate the usually RACH procedure, and instead completes the HO by transmitting the HO confirmation using UL resources indicated in the HO command. Rastagardoost teaches early handover access proceduresin which a UE performs RACH or RACH-less access with a target cell, acquires TA from the target cell—either through RACH response or directly in the HO command—and may trigger the procedure using PDCCH-carried DCI for contention-free RA. Lastly, Zhang teaches RACH operations in time segments created by the gaps (i.e. RACH occurring using scheduling gaps). Because both references address the same technical problem—reducing HO interruption time and signaling overhead—and employ compatible NR HO signaling architectures, a POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s post-HO command RACH-skipping behavior into Fujishiro’s pre-RACH HO sequence as a predictable and routine optimization. Such a combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure.
Claims 8 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro in view of Tao applied to claim 1 and in further view of Zhang et al (US8369209B2), in further view of Lee et al (EP2733874A2) (2012).
Regarding claim 18 (and method claim 8), Fujishiro, Tao, and Zhang fail to teach wherein the UE receives a Msg3 from the neighbor cell or transmits a Msg4 to the neighbor cell that is forwarded by the serving cell.
However, Lee teaches wherein the UE receives a Msg3 from the neighbor cell or transmits a Msg4 to the neighbor cell that is forwarded by the serving cell ([0097], [0103]-[0104], [0107]-[0114], Msg2/3/4 can be transmitted through the serving cell (PCell) even though the RACH is initiated on a different neighbor cell (SCell).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Fujishiro with Tao because such combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure. Fujishiro discloses a HO framework in which the UE performs a pre-random-access procedure toward the neighbor/target cell and receives a HO command that includes information indicating omission of a RACH procedure, thereby reducing HO delay. Tao further teaches that upon receiving the HO command, the UE does not initiate the usually RACH procedure, and instead completes the HO by transmitting the HO confirmation using UL resources indicated in the HO command. Rastagardoost teaches early handover access proceduresin which a UE performs RACH or RACH-less access with a target cell, acquires TA from the target cell—either through RACH response or directly in the HO command—and may trigger the procedure using PDCCH-carried DCI for contention-free RA. Furthermore, Zhang teaches RACH operations in time segments created by the gaps (i.e. RACH occurring using scheduling gaps). Lastly, Lee teaches performing random access and transmitting through a PCell even though the RACH is initiated on a different cell (SCell). Because the references address the same technical problem—reducing HO interruption time and signaling overhead—and employ compatible NR HO signaling architectures, a POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s post-HO command RACH-skipping behavior into Fujishiro’s pre-RACH HO sequence as a predictable and routine optimization. Such a combination would have yielded a system, where after receiving the HO command, the UE completes the HO to the neighbor cell without performing an additional RACH procedure.
Conclusion
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 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 MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE whose telephone number is (571)272-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0830-1700 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights