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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 4 March 2026, in view of the amendments with respect to claims 13 and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 4 March 2026, in view of the amendments with respect to claims 4 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2024/0073771 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Wu”) in view of Leng et al. US 2023/0300708 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Leng”).
As to claim 1, Wu teaches method of a User Equipment (UE) (¶¶74 and 95; figures 3A and 3B), comprising:
receiving, from a first cell, a first signaling indicative of a configuration of at least a second cell (¶¶75-76 and 96; figures 3A and 3B: receive, from MN, RRC reconfiguration message indicating configuration of T-SN PSCell at step 306A of 390A/390B);
receiving, from the first cell, a second signaling to switch a Special Cell (SpCell) of the UE to the second cell (¶¶80-81 and 96; figures 3A and 3B: receive, from MN, second RRC reconfiguration message indicating UE to switch from S-SN PSCell to T-SN PSCell at step 314A of 392A/392B); and
performing one or more actions in response to detecting a failure of the procedure (¶¶83 and 96; figures 3A and 3B: CPC execution failure 327A of 394A/394B), the one or more actions including:
transmitting a report to a network of the first cell, wherein the report indicates the unsuccessful switching of the SpCell to the second cell (¶¶84 and 96-97; figures 3A and 3B: transmit, to MN, SCG failure message indicating CPC execution failure); or
initiating a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection re-establishment procedure (¶163; figure 5A: RRC connection reestablishment procedure 596A initiated by UE following CPC execution failure).
Although Wu teaches “A method…to the second cell; performing one or more actions…re-establishment procedure,” Wu does not explicitly disclose “the second signaling comprises…reception of the second signaling”.
However, Leng teaches receiving, from the first cell, a second signaling to switch a Special Cell (SpCell) of the UE to the second cell, wherein the second signaling comprises at least one of a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) signaling or a Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) (¶86: UE receives PCell change command in a MAC CE);
performing a procedure to switch the SpCell of the UE to the second cell in response to reception of the second signaling (¶86: in response to receiving the PCell change command, perform handover procedure to the indicated target PCell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu by including “the second signaling comprises…reception of the second signaling” as taught by Leng because it provides Wu’s method with the simple substitution of receiving a MCA CE instead of an RRC message to obtain the predictable result of receiving a PCell change command (Leng, ¶86).
As to claim 13, Wu in view of Leng teaches the method of claim 1. Wu further teaches further comprising prioritizing selecting a third Cell indicated in the first signaling or the second signaling during the RRC connection re-establishment procedure (¶163; figure 5A: prioritize MN cell during the RRC Connection Reestablishment Procedure).
As to claim 15, Wu teaches a User Equipment (UE) (¶¶39, 74, and 95; figures 1A, 3A, and 3B), comprising:
a memory (¶39; figure 1A); and
a processor operatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute program code to (¶¶39, 74, and 95; figures 1A, 3A, and 3B):
receive, from a first cell, a first signaling indicative of a configuration of at least a second cell (¶¶75-76 and 96; figures 3A and 3B: receive, from MN, RRC reconfiguration message indicating configuration of T-SN PSCell at step 306A of 390A/390B);
receive, from the first cell, a second signaling to switch a Special Cell (SpCell) of the UE to the second cell (¶¶80-81 and 96; figures 3A and 3B: receive, from MN, second RRC reconfiguration message indicating UE to switch from S-SN PSCell to T-SN PSCell at step 314A of 392A/392B); and
perform one or more actions in response to detecting a failure of the procedure (¶¶83 and 96; figures 3A and 3B: CPC execution failure 327A of 394A/394B), the one or more actions including:
transmitting a report to a network of the first cell, wherein the report indicates the unsuccessful switching of the SpCell to the second cell (¶¶84 and 96-97; figures 3A and 3B: transmit, to MN, SCG failure message indicating CPC execution failure); or
initiating a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection re-establishment procedure (¶163; figure 5A: RRC connection reestablishment procedure 596A initiated by UE following CPC execution failure).
Although Wu teaches “A user equipment…to the second cell; perform one or more…re-establishment procedure,” Wu does not explicitly disclose “the second signaling comprises…of the second signaling”.
However, Leng teaches receive, from the first cell, a second signaling to switch a Special Cell (SpCell) of the UE to the second cell, wherein the second signaling comprises at least one of a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) signaling or a Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) (¶86: UE receives PCell change command in a MAC CE);
perform a procedure to switch the SpCell of the UE to the second cell in response to reception of the second signaling (¶86: in response to receiving the PCell change command, perform handover procedure to the indicated target PCell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the device described in Wu by including “the second signaling comprises…of the second signaling” as taught by Leng because it provides Wu’s device with the simple substitution of receiving a MCA CE instead of an RRC message to obtain the predictable result of receiving a PCell change command (Leng, ¶86).
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 13.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Leng as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Yan et al. US 2024/0073755 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Yan”).
As to claim 2, Wu in view of Leng teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Wu in view of Leng teaches “The method of claim 1,” Wu in view of Leng does not explicitly disclose “the failure of the procedure is detected based on expiration of a timer”.
However, Yan teaches the failure of the procedure is detected based on expiration of a timer (¶¶138-141 and 154-155; figure 6a: failure to access target PSCell is detected based on a timer expiring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng by including “the failure of the procedure is detected based on expiration of a timer” as taught by Yan because it provides Wu in view of Leng’s method with the known technique of indicating failure based on a timer expiring such that failure recovery may occur (Yan, ¶¶138-141 and 154-155; figure 6a).
As to claim 3, Wu in view of Leng, and further in view of Yan teaches the method of claim 1.
Yan further teaches further comprising starting a timer in response to reception of the second signaling or transmission of a mobility complete message, wherein the mobility complete message is generated in response to the second signaling (¶¶138-141 and 154-155; figure 6a: start the timer upon receiving RRC reconfiguration message 604).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng, and further in view of Yan by including “further comprising starting the timer in response to reception of the second signaling or transmission of a mobility complete message, wherein the mobility complete message is generated in response to the second signaling” as further taught by Yan for the same rationale as set forth in claim 2 (Yan, ¶¶138-141 and 154-155; figure 6a).
As to claim 4, Wu in view of Leng, and further in view of Yan teaches the method of claim 3.
Yan further teaches further comprising stopping the timer in response to completion of the procedure (¶¶138-141 and 154-155; figure 6a: stop timer upon successful completion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng, and further in view of Yan by including “further comprising stopping the timer in response to completion of the procedure” as further taught by Yan for the same rationale as set forth in claim 2 (Yan, ¶¶138-141 and 154-155; figure 6a).
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9-11, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Leng as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. WO 2021/092585 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
As to claim 5, Wu in view of Leng teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Wu in view of Leng teaches “The method of claim 1,” Wu in view of Leng does not explicitly disclose “the failure of the procedure is detected based on quality of at least one reference signal associated with an Uplink (UL) grant on the second cell being lower than a threshold”.
However, Kim teaches the failure of the procedure is detected based on quality of at least one reference signal associated with an Uplink (UL) grant on the second cell being lower than a threshold (¶¶130, 165, 185-186, 255, 257, and 260: execution of PSCell change or HO stops according to measurement of reference signals scheduled and UL grant of target cell received in cross-carrier scheduled DCI including conditional PSCell/HO configuration having quality below a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng by including “the failure of the procedure is detected based on quality of at least one reference signal associated with an Uplink (UL) grant on the second cell being lower than a threshold” as taught by Kim because it provides Wu in view of Leng’s method with the known technique of only performing HO or cell reselection when the target cell has a higher quality than the source cell (Kim, ¶¶130, 165, 185-186, 255, 257, and 260).
As to claim 6, Wu in view of Leng, and further in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 5.
Kim further teaches the at least one reference signal is indicated via the first signaling or the second signaling (¶¶130, 165, 185-186, 255, 257, and 260: reference signals scheduled and UL grant of target cell received in cross-carrier scheduled DCI including conditional PSCell/HO configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng, and further in view of Kim by including “the at least one reference signal is indicated via the first signaling or the second signaling” as further taught by Kim for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5 (Kim, ¶¶130, 165, 185-186, 255, 257, and 260).
As to claim 7, Wu in view of Leng, and further in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 5.
Kim further teaches the UL grant is indicated via the first signaling or the second signaling (¶¶130, 165, 185-186, 255, 257, and 260: reference signals scheduled and UL grant of target cell received in cross-carrier scheduled DCI including conditional PSCell/HO configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng, and further in view of Kim by including “the UL grant is indicated via the first signaling or the second signaling” as further taught by Kim for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5 (Kim, ¶¶130, 165, 185-186, 255, 257, and 260).
As to claim 9, Wu in view of Leng teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Wu in view of Leng teaches “The method of claim 1,” Wu in view of Leng does not explicitly disclose “considering a time alignment information of the second cell to be invalid in response to detecting the failure of the procedure”.
However, Kim teaches considering a time alignment information of the second cell to be invalid in response to detecting the failure of the procedure (¶¶183, 191, 272, and 341: time alignment information tied to success/failure of the cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng by including “considering a time alignment information of the second cell to be invalid in response to detecting the failure of the procedure” as taught by Kim because it provides Wu in view of Leng’s method with the enhanced capability of using the appropriate timing alignment for the appropriate cell (Kim, ¶¶183, 191, 272, and 341).
As to claim 10, Wu in view of Leng teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Wu in view of Leng teaches “The method of claim 1,” Wu in view of Leng does not explicitly disclose “switching to an initial or a default Bandwidth Part (BWP) of the second cell in response to detecting the failure of the procedure”.
However, Kim teaches switching to an initial or a default Bandwidth Part (BWP) of the second cell in response to detecting the failure of the procedure (¶¶120 and 124: switching to default BWP of secondary cell in response to failure of indicated BWP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng by including “switching to an initial or a default Bandwidth Part (BWP) of the second cell in response to detecting the failure of the procedure” as taught by Kim because it provides Wu in view of Leng’s method with the enhanced capability of having a BWP to fall back to when failure occurs on an indicated BWP (Kim, ¶¶120 and 124).
As to claim 11, Wu in view of Leng teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Wu in view of Leng teaches “The method of claim 1,” Wu in view of Leng does not explicitly disclose “discarding configured grant for the second cell in response to detecting the failure of the procedure”.
However, Kim teaches discarding configured grant for the second cell in response to detecting the failure of the procedure (¶¶275-277: discarding configured grant of second cell when failure is detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng by including “discarding configured grant for the second cell in response to detecting the failure of the procedure” as taught by Kim because it provides Wu in view of Leng’s method with the with the known technique of performing transmissions based on new, valid control information to achieve the predictable result of not transmitting according to old, invalid control information (Kim, ¶¶275-277).
As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claims 9, 10, or 11.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Leng as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Babaei et al. US 2021/0203400 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Babaei”).
As to claim 8, Wu in view of Leng teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Wu in view of Leng teaches “The method of claim 1,” Wu in view of Leng does not explicitly disclose “the failure of the procedure is detected based on number of Scheduling Request (SR) transmissions on the second cell being equal to or larger than a maximum value”.
However, Babaei teaches the failure of the procedure is detected based on number of Scheduling Request (SR) transmissions on the second cell being equal to or larger than a maximum value (¶¶235, 251, 279, 288, 292, 295, 304, and 356: procedure failure detected based on scheduling request count reaching a maximum value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng by including “the failure of the procedure is detected based on number of Scheduling Request (SR) transmissions on the second cell being equal to or larger than a maximum value” as taught by Babaei because it provides Wu in view of Leng’s method with the known technique of detecting failure based on a maximum value being reached such that failure recovery may occur (Babaei, ¶¶235, 251, 279, 288, 292, 295, 304, and 356).
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Leng as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0389886 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”).
As to claim 14, Wu in view of Leng teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Wu in view of Leng teaches “The method of claim 1,” Wu in view of Leng does not explicitly disclose “the failure of the procedure is detected based on number of transmissions for a mobility complete message on the second cell being equal to or larger than a maximum value”.
However, Lee teaches the failure of the procedure is detected based on number of transmissions for a mobility complete message on the second cell being equal to or larger than a maximum value (¶¶302-303, 322-324, and 330; figures 11-12: mobility to the target cell is deemed unsuccessful when the maximum number of mobility/handover completion retransmissions is reached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Wu in view of Leng by including “the failure of the procedure is detected based on number of transmissions for a mobility complete message on the second cell being equal to or larger than a maximum value” as taught by Lee because it provides Wu in view of Leng’s method with the known technique of detecting failure based on a maximum value being reached such that failure recovery may occur (Lee, ¶¶302-303, 322-324, and 330; figures 11-12).
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 14.
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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights