Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on February 5, 2026. Claims 1-11 and 15-23 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made Final.
America Invents Act (AIA ) Information
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted within this application (has/have) been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 7 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1-6, 15 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HWANG; June (US 20220038976 A1), hereafter “June,” in view of AWADA; Ahmad et al. (US 20220322163 A1), hereafter “Ahmad.”
Consider claim 1. June discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method, comprising: receiving conditional handover (CHO) configuration information for the UE, wherein the CHO configuration information is associated with one or more CHO candidate cells and includes a set of execution conditions corresponding to the one or more CHO candidate cells, and wherein the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state; performing (see fig. 1H, par. 0177: “UE 1h-1 may be connected to a serving base station 1h-5”, “The produced condition for performing a conditional handover may be transferred to the UE 1h-1, together with information produced by the candidate target base station 1h-10 and configuration information to be applied to the UE 1h-1, in operation 1h-35.”): a handover (HO) procedure associated with a target cell, in response to receiving a handover command from a source cell; or a CHO procedure associated with a CHO candidate cell, in response to meeting an execution condition of the CHO candidate cell (see par. 0117: “If a measurement condition given in operation 1h-35, that is, any one of events included in a report configuration, is satisfied while the measurement is being performed, the UE 1h-1 may perform a conditional handover to the candidate target cell 1h-10 associated with the corresponding event in operation 1h-45.” Examiner’s Note: this limitation is written in alternative format); starting a timer for the HO procedure or the CHO procedure (see fig. 1H, par. 0178: “the UE 1h-1 may start the timer for determining a handover failure if at least one condition of measurement report transmission events, which are given as a condition for a conditional handover”); and in response to successfully accessing the target cell or the CHO candidate cell, stopping the timer and transmitting assistant information to the target cell or the CHO candidate cell (see par. 0175: “Using the grant resource, the UE 1g-1 may transmit a handover complete message to the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-55 and par. 0179: “In association with stopping the timer, the UE 1h-1 may stop the corresponding timer if random access to the corresponding candidate target cell 1h-10 is successfully performed, if the UE 1h-1 transfers an RRCReconfigurationComplete message to a lower layer” Examiner’s Analysis: assistant information is being construed as any information that helps in the handover process (e.g. handover complete message)).
June, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Ahmad, in analogous art; the assistant information comprising an indication of whether the execution condition is met to trigger the CHO procedure (see par. 0094: “In a subsequent step, the UE transmits an indication about the availability of logged measurement data to the target cell (S419) containing information about the time instant that the CHO execution condition was fulfilled.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of June and have it include the teachings of Ahmad. The motivation would have been in order for the target cell to proceed with the handover (see par. 0094).
Consider claim 2 in view of claim 1 above. June further discloses in response to successfully completing the HO procedure or the CHO procedure, transmitting, to the target cell or the CHO candidate cell, an indication of an available state of the assistant information (see par. 0175: “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure)).
Consider claim 3 in view of claim 2 above. June, as modified by Ahmad, further discloses wherein the indication includes at least one of: failure information being available; successful HO procedure information being available; and successful CHO procedure information being available (see par. 0175: “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure). Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 4 in view of claim 2 above. June, as modified by Ahmad, further discloses wherein transmitting the assistant information further comprises: receiving a UE information request message from the target cell after successfully completing the HO procedure, or receiving the UE information request message from the CHO candidate cell after successfully completing the CHO procedure; and transmitting a UE information response message to the target cell or the CHO candidate cell, wherein the UE information response message includes the assistant information (see par. 0175: “If the random access is successfully performed, the UE 1g-1 may receive a radon access response (RAR) from the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-50. In this instance, the UE 1g-1 may receive an upstream transmission grant from the target base station 1g-10. Using the grant resource, the UE 1g-1 may transmit a handover complete message to the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-55.” and “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure). Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 5 in view of claim 1 above. June, as modified by Ahmad, further discloses wherein the assistant information includes at least one of: a set of identity information regarding the one or more CHO candidate cells; the set of execution conditions corresponding to the one or more CHO candidate cells; an indication to indicate whether one condition within two conditions or no condition within the two conditions is met, in response to the two conditions being configured to one CHO candidate cell within the one or more CHO candidate cells; a time to trigger (TTT) value corresponding to an execution condition of each of the one or more CHO candidate cells; a measurement result for each of the one or more CHO candidate cells; a time length of a handover timer, wherein the time length is configured by control signaling; a duration length of the handover timer from a time instance of starting the handover timer to a time instance of stopping the handover timer; a time duration between: a time instance of receiving firstly transmitted CHO configuration information associated with one CHO candidate cell within the one or more CHO candidate cells, and a time instance of starting to perform the HO procedure or the CHO procedure; and a time duration between: a time instance of receiving lastly transmitted CHO configuration information associated with one CHO candidate cell within the one or more CHO candidate cells, and a time instance of starting to perform the HO procedure or the CHO procedure (see par. 0175: “If the random access is successfully performed, the UE 1g-1 may receive a radon access response (RAR) from the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-50. In this instance, the UE 1g-1 may receive an upstream transmission grant from the target base station 1g-10. Using the grant resource, the UE 1g-1 may transmit a handover complete message to the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-55.” and “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure), it is transmitted only when the condition are met and the handover is completed successfully. Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 6 in view of claim 1 above. June, as modified by Ahmad, further discloses wherein the assistant information includes at least one of: a measurement result for each of one or more serving beams of the UE; and a state of each of the one or more serving beams during performing the HO procedure or the CHO procedure, wherein the state is failed or available (see par. 0169: “Moreover, the RF processor 1f-10 may perform beamforming. For the beamforming, the RF processor 1f-10 may control the phase and the size of each signal transmitted or received via a plurality of antennas or antenna elements.” and par. 0175: “UE 1g-1 is connected to a serving base station 1g-5 including a serving cell. The UE 1g-1 may transfer a measurement report to the serving base station 1g-5 according to a previously configured measurement configuration in operation 1g-15”).
Consider claim 15. June discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and operable to cause the UE to (see fig. 1E, par. 0161: “the UE may include a radio frequency (RF) processor 1e-10, a baseband processor 1e-20, a storage 1e-30, and a controller 1e-40”): receive conditional handover (CHO) configuration information for the UE, wherein the CHO configuration information is associated with one or more CHO candidate cells and includes a set of execution conditions corresponding to the one or more CHO candidate cells, and wherein the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state (see fig. 1H, par. 0177: “UE 1h-1 may be connected to a serving base station 1h-5”, “The produced condition for performing a conditional handover may be transferred to the UE 1h-1, together with information produced by the candidate target base station 1h-10 and configuration information to be applied to the UE 1h-1, in operation 1h-35.”): perform: a handover (HO) procedure associated with a target cell in response to receiving a handover command from a source cell; or a CHO procedure associated with a CHO candidate cell in response to meeting an execution condition of the CHO candidate cell (see par. 0117: “If a measurement condition given in operation 1h-35, that is, any one of events included in a report configuration, is satisfied while the measurement is being performed, the UE 1h-1 may perform a conditional handover to the candidate target cell 1h-10 associated with the corresponding event in operation 1h-45.” Examiner’s Note: this limitation is written in alternative format); start a timer for the HO procedure or the CHO procedure (see fig. 1H, par. 0178: “the UE 1h-1 may start the timer for determining a handover failure if at least one condition of measurement report transmission events, which are given as a condition for a conditional handover”); and in response to successfully accessing the target cell or the CHO candidate cell, stop the timer and transmit assistant information to the target cell or the CHO candidate cell (see par. 0175: “Using the grant resource, the UE 1g-1 may transmit a handover complete message to the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-55 and par. 0179: “In association with stopping the timer, the UE 1h-1 may stop the corresponding timer if random access to the corresponding candidate target cell 1h-10 is successfully performed, if the UE 1h-1 transfers an RRCReconfigurationComplete message to a lower layer” Examiner’s Analysis: assistant information is being construed as any information that helps in the handover process (e.g. handover complete message)).
June, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Ahmad, in analogous art; the assistant information comprising an indication of whether the execution condition is met to trigger the CHO procedure (see par. 0094: “In a subsequent step, the UE transmits an indication about the availability of logged measurement data to the target cell (S419) containing information about the time instant that the CHO execution condition was fulfilled.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of June and have it include the teachings of Ahmad. The motivation would have been in order for the target cell to proceed with the handover (see par. 0094).
Consider claim 19 in view of claim 15 above. June, as modified by Ahmad, further wherein the at least one processor is further operable to cause the UE to: in response to successfully completing the HO procedure or the CHO procedure, transmit, to the target cell or the CHO candidate cell, an indication of an available state of the assistant information (see par. 0175: “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure)).
Consider claim 20 in view of claim 19 above. June, as modified by Ahmad, further discloses wherein the indication includes at least one of: failure information being available; successful HO procedure information being available; and successful CHO procedure information being available (see par. 0175: “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure). Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 21 in view of claim 19 above. June, as modified by Ahmad, further discloses wherein to transmit the assistant information is further to: receive a UE information request message from the target cell after successfully completing the HO procedure, or receive the UE information request message from the CHO candidate cell after successfully completing the CHO procedure; and transmit a UE information response message to the target cell or the CHO candidate cell, wherein the UE information response message includes the assistant information (see par. 0175: “If the random access is successfully performed, the UE 1g-1 may receive a radon access response (RAR) from the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-50. In this instance, the UE 1g-1 may receive an upstream transmission grant from the target base station 1g-10. Using the grant resource, the UE 1g-1 may transmit a handover complete message to the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-55.” and “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure). Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 22 in view of claim 15 above. June, as modified by Ahmad, further discloses wherein the assistant information includes at least one of: a set of identity information regarding the one or more CHO candidate cells; the set of execution conditions corresponding to the one or more CHO candidate cells; an indication to indicate whether one condition within two conditions or no condition within the two conditions is met, in response to the two conditions being configured to one CHO candidate cell within the one or more CHO candidate cells; a time to trigger (TTT) value corresponding to an execution condition of each of the one or more CHO candidate cells; a measurement result for each of the one or more CHO candidate cells; a time length of a handover timer, wherein the time length is configured by control signaling; a duration length of the handover timer from a time instance of starting the handover timer to a time instance of stopping the handover timer; a time duration between: a time instance of receiving firstly transmitted CHO configuration information associated with one CHO candidate cell within the one or more CHO candidate cells, and a time instance of starting to perform the HO procedure or the CHO procedure; and a time duration between: a time instance of receiving lastly transmitted CHO configuration information associated with one CHO candidate cell within the one or more CHO candidate cells, and a time instance of starting to perform the HO procedure or the CHO procedure (see par. 0175: “If the random access is successfully performed, the UE 1g-1 may receive a radon access response (RAR) from the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-50. In this instance, the UE 1g-1 may receive an upstream transmission grant from the target base station 1g-10. Using the grant resource, the UE 1g-1 may transmit a handover complete message to the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-55.” and “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure), it is transmitted only when the condition are met and the handover is completed successfully. Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 23 in view of claim 15 above. June, as modified by Ahmad, further wherein the assistant information includes at least one of: a measurement result for each of one or more serving beams of the UE; and a state of each of the one or more serving beams during performing the HO procedure or the CHO procedure, wherein the state is failed or available (see par. 0169: “Moreover, the RF processor 1f-10 may perform beamforming. For the beamforming, the RF processor 1f-10 may control the phase and the size of each signal transmitted or received via a plurality of antennas or antenna elements.” and par. 0175: “UE 1g-1 is connected to a serving base station 1g-5 including a serving cell. The UE 1g-1 may transfer a measurement report to the serving base station 1g-5 according to a previously configured measurement configuration in operation 1g-15”).
10. Claims 7-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over June in view of Balan; Irina et al. (US 20230239752 A1), hereafter “Balan.” (see US Provisional Application 63028483: page 13, paragraphs 46 and 47 for priority date).
Consider claim 7, June discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless
communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and operable to cause the UE to (see fig. 1E, par. 0161: “the UE may include a radio frequency (RF) processor 1e-10, a baseband processor 1e-20, a storage 1e-30, and a controller 1e-40”): receive conditional handover (CHO) configuration information for a the UE, wherein the CHO configuration information is associated with one or more CHO candidate cells and includes a set of execution conditions corresponding to the one or more CHO candidate cells, wherein the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state (see fig. 1H, par. 0177: “UE 1h-1 may be connected to a serving base station 1h-5”, “The produced condition for performing a conditional handover may be transferred to the UE 1h-1, together with information produced by the candidate target base station 1h-10 and configuration information to be applied to the UE 1h-1, in operation 1h-35.”):; initiate, in response to an occurrence of a failure, a RRC re-establishment procedure, wherein the failure is one of a radio link failure (RLF), a handover (HO) failure, and a CHO failure; select a first cell; perform, in response to the first cell being configured with CHO configuration information, a CHO procedure (see fig. 1I, par. 0184: “if the UE declares an RLF in association with a serving cell connection, or the UE fails while performing a normal handover or a conditional handover to another cell in operation 1i-03, the UE performs a cell selection process in operation 1i-8, and if a selected cell is one of the candidate cells of the conditional handover configuration information that the UE currently stores in operation 1i-13, the UE may perform a conditional handover to the corresponding cell. When performing the conditional handover, the UE may start a timer. If the selected cell is not any one of the candidate cells for the conditional handover, the UE may perform an RRC connection re-establishment operation in operation 1i-18”).
June, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Balan, in analogous art; store, in a failure report, information regarding whether an execution condition for each of the one or more CHO candidate cells is met or not (see par. 0044: “logging a number of failures of handover for the user device due to the plurality of events not fulfilling an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution…” and par. 0045: “logging information indicating fulfillment, or not, of an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution based on a joint evaluation of multiple events by the user device”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of June and have it include the teachings of Balan. The motivation would have been in order keep a record of the times when a particular operation was performed successfully (see pars. 0044 and 0045).
Consider claim 8 in view of claim 7 above. June, as modified by Balan, further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further operable to cause the UE to: transmit to the first cell, in response to successfully completing the CHO procedure, an indication of an available state of assistant information (see par. 0175: “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure)).
Consider claim 9 in view of claim 7 above. June, as modified by Balan, further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further operable to cause the UE to, in response to not successfully completing the CHO procedure: select a second cell; transmit a RRC re-establishment request to the second cell; and transmit, to the second cell, an indication of an available state of assistant information in response to successfully completing the RRC re-establishment procedure (see fig. 1I, par. 0175 and par. 0184: “if the UE declares an RLF in association with a serving cell connection, or the UE fails while performing a normal handover or a conditional handover to another cell in operation 1i-03, the UE performs a cell selection process in operation 1i-8, and if a selected cell is one of the candidate cells of the conditional handover configuration information that the UE currently stores in operation 1i-13, the UE may perform a conditional handover to the corresponding cell. When performing the conditional handover, the UE may start a timer. If the selected cell is not any one of the candidate cells for the conditional handover, the UE may perform an RRC connection re-establishment operation in operation 1i-18”).
Consider claim 10 in view of claim 8 above. June, as modified by Balan, further discloses wherein the indication includes at least one of: wherein the indication is at least one of: failure information being available; and information regarding successfully completing the CHO procedure being available, wherein the CHO procedure is performed after initiating an RRC re-establishment procedure (see par. 0175: “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure). Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 11 in view of claim 8 above. June, as modified by Balan, further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further operable to cause the UE to: receive a UE information request message from the first cell and transmit a UE information response message to the first cell; or receive the UE information request message from a second cell and transmit the UE information response message to the second cell, wherein the UE information response message includes the assistant information (see par. 0175: “If the random access is successfully performed, the UE 1g-1 may receive a radon access response (RAR) from the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-50. In this instance, the UE 1g-1 may receive an upstream transmission grant from the target base station 1g-10. Using the grant resource, the UE 1g-1 may transmit a handover complete message to the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-55.” and “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure). Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 16 in view of claim 9 above. June, as modified by Balan, further discloses wherein the indication includes at least one of wherein the indication is at least one of: failure information being available; and information regarding successfully completing the CHO procedure being available, wherein the CHO procedure is performed after initiating an RRC re-establishment procedure (see par. 0175: “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure). Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 17 in view of claim 9 above. June, as modified by Balan, further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a UE information request message from the first cell and transmit a UE information response message to the first cell; or receive the UE information request message from the second cell and transmit the UE information response message to the second cell, wherein the UE information response message includes the assistant information (see par. 0175: “If the random access is successfully performed, the UE 1g-1 may receive a radon access response (RAR) from the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-50. In this instance, the UE 1g-1 may receive an upstream transmission grant from the target base station 1g-10. Using the grant resource, the UE 1g-1 may transmit a handover complete message to the target base station 1g-10 in operation 1g-55.” and “If the handover complete message is transmitted before the timer, which began in operation 1g-35, expires, the UE 1g-1 may stop the timer. If the timer, which has begun, expires before a handover complete message is transmitted, the UE 1g-1 may be changed to an idle state.” Examiner’s Analysis: the handover complete message serves as an indication of the state of the handover (successful of failure). Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Consider claim 18 in view of claim 17 above. June, as modified by Balan, further discloses wherein a failure indication message is transmitted from a base station (BS) of one of the first cell and the second cell to a BS of a source cell, wherein the failure indication message includes an indication, and wherein the indication includes one of: a successful CHO procedure after initiating the RRC re-establishment procedure; and a failed CHO procedure after initiating the RRC re-establishment procedure (see par. 0183: “Here, a conditional handover operation is defined as the case of the operation of starting a timer mentioned in FIG. 1H. If the timer expires in operation 1i-20 while the conditional handover is being performed, the UE may perform an RRC re-establishment operation or an SCGfailure information operation, or may perform a fallback to the cell of the existing serving base station in operation 1i-30. If the timer of the UE does not expire, this may indicate that the conditional handover is complete in operation 1i-25.” Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format).
Conclusion
11. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200413392 A1: discloses apparatuses that support beam selection for initiating random access during conditional handover (CHO) execution.
US 20230344508 A1: discloses method of NTN assistance information update procedure for a user equipment (UE) is provided.
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCOS BATISTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
February 24, 2026