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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to Applicant’s 02/04/2026 communications in the application of Wang et al. for the "NODES, USER EQUIPMENTS AND METHODS THEREOF" filed 04/21/2023. This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/KR2021/ 014809, International Filing Date: 10/21/2021, and claims foreign priority to 202011131907.3, filed 10/21/2020 in China. This application is a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. 1.114 filed on 02/04/2026. Claims 15, 20, 24, 29 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 24, 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the clause with the optional language “configured to”. In order to present the claim in a better form and to describe a positive or require steps/function to be performing (i.e. using the claim language that does not suggest or make optionally but required steps to be performed), applicant is suggested to revise the claim language such that the steps/functions, which follows “configured to”, to be performed are required (not optional). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
6. Claims 15, 20, 24, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US#12,193,097) in view of Ramachandra et al. (US#2023/0292205).
Regarding claims 24, 29, the references disclose an apparatus for performing conditional handover in wireless communication system, according to the essential features of the claims. Hori et al. (US#12,193,097) discloses a first node in a wireless communication system, comprising: a memory; a transceiver, and at least one processor connected to the memory and the transceiver (see Fig. 6 for the node structure includes receiver 604/transmitter 600, processing unit 602), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to a source gNB- distributed unit (DU), a UE context modification request message including information related to data transmissions for one or more data radio bearers (DRBs)(Figs. 7-8; Col. 2. Line 58 to Col. 3, line 18: reconfiguration message including a DRB configuration, and the configuration being related to a DAPS handover), and keep a data transmission for at least one DRB configured with a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) during a handover (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 58-67 & Col. 5, lines 13-48: based on inclusion of a first parameter in the DRB configuration, configuration of a PDCP entity of a DRB corresponding to the DRB configuration, the configuration being related to a DAPS handover).
However, Hori reference does not disclose expressly wherein the information includes identities of the one or more DRBs, and an indication to stop a data transmission of at least one DRB, among the one or more DRBs, not subject to a DAPS handover, and wherein the data transmission for the at least one DRB not subject to the DAPS handover is stopped at the source gNB-DU. In the same field of endeavor, Ramachandra et al. (US#2023/0292205) discloses Rel-14 Make-Before-Break Handover, in which Handover interruption time is typically defined as the time from the UE stops transmission/reception with the source access node until the target access node resumes transmission/reception with the UE (para [0159]-[0163]: stop the data transmission only for the DRB(s) not subject to DAPS handover).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently performing conditional handover in wireless communication system, and would have applied Ramachandra’s user plane aspects considering duplicate discard for Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover report into Hori’s system and method for make-before-break handover. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to apply Ramachandra’s user plane aspects considering duplicate discard for DAPS handover report into Hori’s terminal apparatus, base station apparatus and method with the motivation being to provide a method and system for exchanging context related to SCG between BSs and between BS and UE.
Regarding claims 15, 20, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 24, 29 examined above. Therefore, claims 15, 20 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 24, 29 above.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Jia et al. (US#2025/0175845) shows method and apparatus for cell switching.
The Zhang et al. (US#12,207,149) shows dual active protocol stack handover.
The Kim et al. (US#12,262,252) shows method and apparatus for performing handover procedure in wireless communication system.
The Kim et al. (US#12,156,081) shows method and apparatus for performing handover in wireless communication system.
The Kim et al. (US#11,943,670) shows method and apparatus for performing handover in wireless communication system.
The Paladugu et al. (US#10,687,263) shows enhanced make-before-break handover.
The Paladugu et al. (US#11,388,642) shows enhanced make-before-break handover.
The Xu et al. (US#11,546,811) shows method for establishing fronthaul interface.access for a UE, performing handover for a UE, data forwarding method UE and BS.
The Zhang et al. (US#11,202,333) shows layer-2 processing method, CU-DU.
The Hong et al. (US#10,616,932) shows method for configuring wireless connection of terminal and apparatus.
The Kubota et al. (US#11,026,142) shows techniques for providing uplink-based mobility.
8. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
10. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
03/05/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477