FFDETAILED 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 .
The amendment filed on 09/17/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 25-26 are pending of which claims 1, 11, and 25 are independent and amended.
The IDS(s) submitted on 04/05/2023 has been considered.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the Remarks filed on 09/17/2025, Applicant argues with respect to claims 1 and 25 on page 7 in the last paragraph of section A, Applicant argues that the primary reference, Zhang fails to teach in paragraph 133 part of the amended limitation reciting “…the master node reconfiguring a user equipment (UE) to remove a conditional PSCell change associated with the S-SN” as now required even though Applicant readily admitting in the one from the last paragraph of Section A that the wireless communication device receives RRCReconfiguration message and sends RRCReconfigurationComplete message indicating CPAC configuration and execution.
Examiner Response : First, examiner indicates that the examiner cited paragraph 133 of Zhang to address original dependent claim 6 reciting “reconfiguring a user equipment (UE) to remove a conditional PSCell change associated with the S-SN” . Now given that the limitation is further amended to recite “…after receiving the cancellation indication, the master node reconfiguring a user equipment (UE) to remove a conditional PSCell change associated with the S-SN”, the examiner will focus on addressing on the pending amending limitation of claim 1 as recited above.
In Zhang’s Fig. 7 Master Node (MN) receives from Source Secondary Node (S-SN) receives CPAC cancel/SN change required at S910. MN sends CPAC Cancel at S920 to Target Secondary Node (T-SN). Then as discussed in Zhang’s paragraph 134 and 165 the remaining steps in Fig. 7 are shown in Fig. 10 . In other words Fig. 10 is a continuation of Fig. 7 and in Fig. 10 in S240 MN determines and configures execution condition including candidate PScell configuration in RRCReconfiguration message to the UE at S250 in Fig. 10 and UE is reconfigured with the execution conditions and at S280 an RRCReconfigurationComplete indicating the UE is reconfigured by the MN. In paragraphs 207-208 Zhang discloses the RRCReconfiguration message sent to the UE where the execution conditions are related for the candidate PSCell along with the CPC/CPAC procedure indicator. More critically Zhang discloses in paragraph 180-181 that RRCreconfiguration message sent to the UE from the MN contains also delete/remove/cancel the stored CPAC configuration responsive to the PSCell change. Per Fig. 7 and Fig. 10 the MN sends the RRCReconfiguration message after S1110 CPAC/CPC cancel is received by the MN and S1130 SN Addition request Acknowledge in Fig. 7 and S220 SN Addition request Acknowledge in Fig. 10.
Hence Zhang fully meets the amended limitation in claims 1 and 25 and claims 1 and 25 continue to be anticipated by Zhang. Also dependent claim 6 is a variety of the amended limitation of claim 1 and is fully anticipated by Zhang as explained above.
Applicant’s argument with independent claim 11 is moot as claim 11 is now rejected with the combination of Zhang and Zhu (US20210337449 A1) as shown below.
Zhu (US2021033744A1) addresses the limitation in the alternative in claim 11 reciting CHO perceived occurrence necessitating CPC /CPCA cancellation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2,3, 5-10, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US 20230171652 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang)
Examiner’s Note: Per Applicant’s Specification paragraph 115 conditional PSCell change (CPC) is synonymous with CPAC (Conditional PSCell Addition/Change ) and CHO (Conditional Handover). In fact the examiner takes the position CPAC is inclusive of CPC as CPAC is really CPA and/or CPC. Further In the background in particular and the detailed section references and quotations from the 3GPP standard documents makes such disclosure readily admitted prior art
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method (See Figs. 1-17i n particular Figs. 4-8) and in particular performed by a master node, MN (Fig. 6 MN 602 and Fig. 7 MN 702) , for cancellation of a conditional primary secondary cell, (PSCell) change (i.e. Fig. 7 S920 CPAC cancel), the method comprising:
the master node( Fig. 6 MN 602), transmitting to a target secondary node, T-SN (Fig. 6 T-SN 606), a request for a conditional PSCell change, CPC, configuration; (Fig. 6 MN 602 transmits at S820 CPAC Modification Request with PSCell identification configuration information to T-SN 606 – See paragraphs 163-164)
the master node( Fig. 6 MN 602),receiving a response to the request; (MN-602 receives at S830 CPAC modification request acknowledge from T-SN 606 as response – See paragraphs 163-164)
the master node (Fig. 6 MN 602), receiving a cancellation indication transmitted by a source secondary node, S-SN (i.e. S-SN 704 in Fig. 7 and same as S-SN 604 in Fig. 6) , the cancellation indication (CPAC cancel/SN change required at S910 in Fig. 7) indicating that the CPC configuration is to be cancelled (MN 702 in Fig. 7 which is same as MN 602 in Fig. 6 receives the CPC configuration to be cancelled as CPAC cancel/SN change required at S910 in Fig. 7 from S-SN 704 in Fig. 7 and same as S-SN 604 in Fig. 6 – see paragraphs 165-166. See also paragraph 161 in relation to Fig. 5) ;
after receiving the cancellation indication (More critically Zhang discloses in paragraph 180-181 that RRCreconfiguration message sent to the UE from the MN contains also delete/remove/cancel the stored CPAC configuration responsive to the PSCell change. Per Fig. 7 and Fig. 10 the MN sends the RRCReconfiguration message after S1110. See also Fig. 17 with respect to paragraphs 247-250), the master node reconfiguring a user equipment (UE) to remove a conditional PSCell change associated with the S-SN; ( In Zhang’s Fig. 7 Master Node (MN) receives from Source Secondary Node (S-SN) receives CPAC cancel/SN change required at S910. MN sends CPAC Cancel at S920 to Target Secondary Node (T-SN). Then as discussed in Zhang’s paragraph 134 and 165 the remaining steps in Fig. 7 are shown in Fig. 10 . In other words Fig. 10 is a continuation of Fig. 7 and in Fig. 10 in S240 MN determines and configures execution condition including candidate PScell configuration in RRCReconfiguration message to the UE at S250 in Fig. 10 and UE is reconfigured with the execution conditions and at S280 an RRCReconfigurationComplete indicating the UE is reconfigured by the MN. In paragraphs 207-208 Zhang discloses the RRCReconfiguration message sent to the UE where the execution conditions are related for the candidate PSCell along with the CPC/CPAC procedure indicator. More critically Zhang discloses in paragraph 180-181 that RRCreconfiguration message sent to the UE from the MN contains also delete/remove/cancel the stored CPAC configuration responsive to the PSCell change. Per Fig. 7 and Fig. 10 the MN sends the RRCReconfiguration message after S1110 CPAC/CPC cancel is received by the MN and S1130 SN Addition request Acknowledge in Fig. 7 and S220 SN Addition request Acknowledge in Fig. 10. )
and
transmitting to the T-SN (i.e. T-SN 706 is same as T-SN 606 in Fig. 6) an indication (i.e. In Fig. 7 at S920 CPAC Cancel) in that the CPC configuration to be cancelled.(i.e. MN-702 in Fig. 7 at S920 sends a CPAC cancel with CPC configuration to be cancelled by indicating CPAC Replace. See paragraphs 165-166 and In paragraph 9 it is explicitly stated that the MN may send a message to the target SN indicating to modify or cancel the CPAC configuration for the one or more candidate PSCells, which includes identification information about the one or more candidate PSCells to be modified or canceled. )
Regarding claim 25, Zhang discloses a network node(Fig. 6 MN 602,Fig. 5 MN 502 and Fig. 7 MN 702), the network node comprising:
a transmitter (Fig. 2 Transceiver 210 and Antenna 212); a receive(Fig. 2 Transceiver 210 and Antenna 212)r; memory (Fig. 2 Memory 2); processing circuitry(processor 214 – Fig.2), wherein the network node is configured to perform a method comprising:
transmitting to a target secondary node (T-SN) (Fig. 6 T-SN 606), a request for a conditional primary secondary cell change configuration; (Fig. 6 MN 602 transmits at S820 CPAC Modification Request with PSCell identification configuration information to T-SN 606 – See paragraphs 163-164)
receiving a response to the request; (MN-602 receives at S830 CPAC modification request acknowledge from T-SN 606 as response – See paragraphs 163-164)
receiving a cancellation indication (CPAC cancel/SN change required at S910 in Fig. 7) transmitted by a source secondary node( S-SN) (i.e. S-SN 704 in Fig. 7 and same as S-SN 604 in Fig. 6) , the cancellation indicating that the CPC configuration is to be cancelled. (MN 702 in Fig. 7 which is same as MN 602 in Fig. 6 receives the CPC configuration to be cancelled as CPAC cancel/SN change required at S910 in Fig. 7 from S-SN 704 in Fig. 7 and same as S-SN 604 in Fig. 6 – see paragraphs 165-166. See also paragraph 161 in relation to Fig. 5)
after receiving the cancellation indication (More critically Zhang discloses in paragraph 180-181 that RRCreconfiguration message sent to the UE from the MN contains also delete/remove/cancel the stored CPAC configuration responsive to the PSCell change. Per Fig. 7 and Fig. 10 the MN sends the RRCReconfiguration message after S1110. See also Fig. 17 with respect to paragraphs 247-250), reconfiguring a user equipment (UE) to remove a conditional PSCell change associated with the S-SN; ( In Zhang’s Fig. 7 Master Node (MN) receives from Source Secondary Node (S-SN) receives CPAC cancel/SN change required at S910. MN sends CPAC Cancel at S920 to Target Secondary Node (T-SN). Then as discussed in Zhang’s paragraph 134 and 165 the remaining steps in Fig. 7 are shown in Fig. 10 . In other words Fig. 10 is a continuation of Fig. 7 and in Fig. 10 in S240 MN determines and configures execution condition including candidate PScell configuration in RRCReconfiguration message to the UE at S250 in Fig. 10 and UE is reconfigured with the execution conditions and at S280 an RRCReconfigurationComplete indicating the UE is reconfigured by the MN. In paragraphs 207-208 Zhang discloses the RRCReconfiguration message sent to the UE where the execution conditions are related for the candidate PSCell along with the CPC/CPAC procedure indicator. More critically Zhang discloses in paragraph 180-181 that RRCreconfiguration message sent to the UE from the MN contains also delete/remove/cancel the stored CPAC configuration responsive to the PSCell change. Per Fig. 7 and Fig. 10 the MN sends the RRCReconfiguration message after S1110 CPAC/CPC cancel is received by the MN and S1130 SN Addition request Acknowledge in Fig. 7 and S220 SN Addition request Acknowledge in Fig. 10. ) and
transmitting to the T-SN (i.e. T-SN 706 is same as T-SN 606 in Fig. 6) an indication (i.e. In Fig. 7 at S920 CPAC Cancel) in that the CPC configuration to be cancelled.(i.e. MN-702 in Fig. 7 at S920 sends a CPAC cancel with CPC configuration to be cancelled by indicating CPAC Replace. See paragraphs 165-166 and In paragraph 9 it is explicitly stated that the MN may send a message to the target SN indicating to modify or cancel the CPAC configuration for the one or more candidate PSCells, which includes identification information about the one or more candidate PSCells to be modified or canceled. )
Regarding claim 26, Zhang discloses wherein the method further comprises transmitting to the T-SN (i.e. T-SN 706 is same as T-SN 606 in Fig. 6) an indication (i.e. In Fig. 7 at S920 CPAC Cancel) in that the CPC configuration to be cancelled.(i.e. MN-702 in Fig. 7 at S920 sends a CPAC cancel with CPC configuration to be cancelled by indicating CPAC Replace. See paragraphs 165-166 and In paragraph 9 it is explicitly stated that the MN may send a message to the target SN indicating to modify or cancel the CPAC configuration for the one or more candidate PSCells, which includes identification information about the one or more candidate PSCells to be modified or canceled. See also paragraph 161 in relation to Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cancellation indication transmitted by the S-SN comprises one of: (i.e. Fig 7 S9!0 CPAC Cancel message )
an S-NODE MODIFICATION REQUIRED message,
an S-NODE RELEASE REQUIRED message,
a CPC CANCEL message, or a CHO CANCEL. (See Paragraph 165 stating explicitly Under process 700, the source SN 704 may send/transmit a message (e.g., CPAC cancel message, SN change required message, and/or other messages) to the MN 702 (910). The message may provide a request to release the CPAC configuration for the PSCell to be modified. The message may include the identification information of the PSCell to be modified)
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: releasing of resources associated with the CPC configuration that has been indicated to be cancelled (See Paragraph 15 the T-SN returns a CPAC completion to the MN when the CPAC procedure is complete be it cancellation or addition of PSCell. See also paragraphs 160 and 164), and/or stopping a supervision timer.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the indication transmitted to the T-SN (i.e. Fig. 7 TSN 760) comprises:
an S-NODE MODIFICATION REQUEST message, a CPC CANCEL message, (Fig. 6 MN 602 transmits at S820 CPAC Modification Request with PSCell identification configuration information to T-SN 606 – See paragraphs 163-164) an SN ADDITION CANCEL message, or an S-NODE RELEASE REQUEST message.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1 (See Fig. 7 and Fig. 10 where the last two steps are part of Fig. 10 and Fig. 7 and Fig. 10 are part of the same long procedure combining Figs 7 and 10) , wherein indication that the CPC configuration is to be cancelled is transmitted to the T-SN (i.e. Fig. 7 MN receives the CPC/CPAC cancelation at S910 and after receiving CPC/CPAC cancel is forwarded to T-SN at S920) after receiving the cancellation indication (i.e. Fig. 7 S920 T-SN receive CPC/CPAC cancel S920 after the MN receives CPC/CPAC at S910 in Fig. 7) and before reconfiguring the UE to remove the conditional PSCell change associated with the S-SN. (In Fig. 7 the next steps after cancelation are S930 and S940 are in Fig. 10 as S210 and S220 and in S250 RRCReconfiguration is sent to reconfigure the UE to remove the conditional PSCell change associated with the S-SN. More critically Zhang discloses in paragraph 180-181 that RRCreconfiguration message sent to the UE from the MN contains also delete/remove/cancel the stored CPAC configuration responsive to the PSCell change. Per Fig. 7 and Fig. 10 the MN sends the RRCReconfiguration message after S1110. See also Fig. 17 with respect to paragraphs 247-250)
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising
prior to transmitting the request to the T-SN(i.e. Fig. 6 prior to T-SN 606 receiving CPAC modification Request at S810), receiving from the S-SN a request to configure CPC. (S-SN 604 at S810 SN Change Required message with CPAC/CPC configuration/modification request)
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the method of claim 7 wherein receiving he request transmitted by the S-SN comprises receiving one of: an S-NODE MODIFICATION REQUIRED message, or an S-NODE RELEASE REQUIRED message. (Per paragraph 219 The source SN may initiate/trigger/cause the procedure by sending a SN modification required message (or other messages) to the MN.)
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the request transmitted by the S-SN comprises information indicating the T-SN.(Per paragraph 219 the source SN may initiate/trigger/cause the procedure by sending a SN modification required message (or other messages) to the MN. The message may provide/indicate/specify the execution condition(s). The message may include the execution condition(s) related/associated to the candidate PSCells (e.g., a list of execution conditions per frequency and/or per frequency and PCI) and/or other information. The T-SN is a candidate PSCell. Per paragraph 163 with respect to Fig 6 S810 it is state that the message may provide/specify a request to modify the CPAC configuration for one or more candidate PSCells. The message may include the measurement results related to the target SN 606, the source SCG configuration, the identification information of the PSCell to be modified (e.g., frequency, frequency and PCI, and/or CGI) and/or other information.)
Regarding claim 10, Zhang disclose the method of claim , wherein transmitting he request to the T-SN to prepare the CPC configuration comprises transmitting to the T-SN an S-NODE ADDITION REQUEST message. (Zhang in paragraph 167 explicitly discloses that the MN 702 may send a SN addition request message (or other messages) to the target SN 706 (930). The message may provide a request for a novel CPAC configuration for the related PSCell. The message may include the identification information of the PSCell to be added/modified (e.g., frequency, frequency and PCI, and/or CGI), the updated source SCG configuration, the updated measurement results (e.g., candidateCellInfoListMN, candidateCellInfoListSN, and/or other results) related to the target SN 706, an indication (e.g., an indication to specify that the addition procedure is related to the CPAC modification), and/or other information.)
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.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Zhu et al (US 20210337449 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses a method (See Figs. 1-17i n particular Figs. 4-8) performed by a source secondary node (S-SN) i.e. S-SN 704 in Fig. 7 and same as S-SN 604 in Fig. 6) for cancellation a conditional primary secondary cell( (PSCell) change(i.e. Fig. 7 S920 CPAC cancel), the method comprising:
transmitting a cancellation indication(CPAC cancel/SN change required at S910 in Fig. 7) to a master node (MN) (Fig. 6 MN 602 and Fig. 7 MN 702) indicating that a configured conditional PSCell change (CPC) is to be cancelled. (MN 702 in Fig. 7 which is same as MN 602 in Fig. 6 receives the CPC configuration to be cancelled as CPAC cancel/SN change required at S910 in Fig. 7 from S-SN 704 in Fig. 7 and same as S-SN 604 in Fig. 6 – see paragraphs 165-166. See also paragraph 161 in relation to Fig. 5)
Zhang fails to discloses detecting that i) a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) is going to be deactivated or suspended and/or ii) a conditional hand over (CHO) needs to be configured; and wherein the cancellation indication is transmitted as a result of: detecting that the SCG is going to be deactivated or suspended, or detecting that the CHO needs to be configured.
Zhu in the same endeavor discloses detecting that i) a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) is going to be deactivated or suspended and/or ii) a conditional hand over (CHO) needs to be configured (Since in the alternative per paragraph 39 a determination or detection occurs that the UE is about to lose connection and should be handed over by initiating CHO) ; and wherein the cancellation indication is transmitted as a result of: detecting that the SCG is going to be deactivated or suspended, or detecting that the CHO needs to be configured.(Per paragraph 39 the cancellation is transmitted as a result of detecting CHO needs to be configured due to the UE about to lose connection. Note the concept taught here is the CPC procedure being terminated and enabling the UE to be handed over to a new cell based on the CHO and the concept can be applied by the master node or secondary node)
In view of the above, having Zhang’s addition and change of conditional primary cells in a secondary cell group and then given the well- established teaching of Zhu’s techniques for conditions for cancellation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhang’s addition and change of conditional primary cells in a secondary cell group as taught by Zhu’s techniques for conditions for cancellation, since Zhu states in paragraph s 39, 42, and 46 that the modification results enabling the UE to be handed over to a new cell based on the CHO by terminating the CPC procedure improving the efficiency of wireless network operations and minimizing CHO/CPC conflicts.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang modified by Zhu discloses the method of claim 11, Zhang further discloses wherein the cancellation indication transmitted by the S-SN comprises one of: (i.e. Fig 7 S9!0 CPAC Cancel message )
an S-NODE MODIFICATION REQUIRED message,
an S-NODE RELEASE REQUIRED message,
a CPC CANCEL message, or a CHO CANCEL. (See Paragraph 165 stating explicitly Under process 700, the source SN 704 may send/transmit a message (e.g., CPAC cancel message, SN change required message, and/or other messages) to the MN 702 (910). The message may provide a request to release the CPAC configuration for the PSCell to be modified. The message may include the identification information of the PSCell to be modified)
Regarding claim 13, Zhang modified by Zhu discloses the method of claim 11, Zhang further discloses further comprising prior to transmitting the cancellation indication to the MN (i.e. Fig. 7 S910 CPAC Cancel), transmitting a request to the MN to prepare a CPC configuration(Fig/ 6 S810 CPAC modification request/SN change required (PSCell identification info) -S-SN can only request to cancel the CPC PSCell identification info already configured); and receiving a response message transmitted by the MN(Per paragraph [0218] The MN may send/transmit a SN change confirm message (or other messages) to the source SN 1206. The message may confirm the change of the source SN)
Regarding claim 14, Zhang modified by Zhu discloses the method of claim 13 , Zhang further discloses wherein the request comprises: an S-NODE MODIFICATION REQUIRED message, or an S-NODE RELEASE REQUIRED message. (Per paragraph 219 The source SN may initiate/trigger/cause the procedure by sending a SN modification required message (or other messages) to the MN.)
Regarding claim 15, Zhang modified by Zhu discloses the method of claim 13, Zhang further discloses wherein the response transmitted by the MN is an S-Node Modification Confirmation message. (Per paragraph [0218] The MN may send/transmit a SN change confirm message (or other messages) to the source SN 1206. The message may confirm the change of the source SN)
Regarding claim 16, Zhang modified by Zhu discloses the method of claim 13, Zhang fails to disclose wherein the cancellation indication is transmitted as a result of the CHO needs to be configured.
Zhu discloses wherein the cancellation indication is transmitted as a result of the CHO needs to be configured. .(Per paragraph 39 the cancellation is transmitted as a result of detecting CHO needs to be configured due to the UE about to lose connection. Note the concept taught here is the CPC procedure being terminated and enabling the UE to be handed over to a new cell based on the CHO and the concept can be applied by the master node or secondary node)
In view of the above, having Zhang’s addition and change of conditional primary cells in a secondary cell group and then given the well- established teaching of Zhu’s techniques for conditions for cancellation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zhang’s addition and change of conditional primary cells in a secondary cell group as taught by Zhu’s techniques for conditions for cancellation, since Zhu states in paragraph s 39, 42, and 46 that the modification results enabling the UE to be handed over to a new cell based on the CHO by terminating the CPC procedure improving the efficiency of wireless network operations and minimizing CHO/CPC conflicts.
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 HABTE MERED whose telephone number is (571)272-6046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-10 PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights