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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 16, applicant argues that “In the context of multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC), an "intra-SN PSCell switch procedure" is a specific procedure in which both the source PSCell and the target PSCell are associated with the same Secondary Node (SN). This is distinguishable from an inter-SN PSCell change (or inter-SN CPC), where the target PSCell belongs to a different SN than the source PSCell. (3GPP TS 37.340, clause 10.6 ("PSCell change")): "In all MR-DC options, to perform this procedure within the same SN, the SN Modification procedure as described in clause 10.3 is used. ... In all MR-DC options, to perform a PSCell change between different SN nodes, the SN Change procedure as described in clause 10.5 is used." (3GPP TS 37.340, clause 10.6 ("PSCell change"). The Examiner's mapping relies on Hwang at [[0154]], and [[0157]]-[[0158]] and FIGS. 5 and 7, which describe a general conditional PSCell change/addition in an MR-DC scenario. Hwang discloses that the UE transmits MR-DC capability and conditional PSCell change capability to the MN, receives configuration information (including candidate target PSCell configuration and conditions), performs measurements, executes a conditional PSCell addition/change when a condition is satisfied by performing random access to a target cell, and transmits an RRC message regarding the target cell to the MN. However, nowhere in the cited sections or in Hwang as a whole discloses or suggests that the source PSCell and target PSCell belong to the same SN. Hwang does not describe or inherently disclose the specific "intra-SN" limitation now recited in claim 16” in pages 9-10.
In response to applicant’s argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., both the source PSCell and the target PSCell are associated with the same Secondary Node (SN) … the source PSCell and target PSCell belong to the same SN) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Hwang discloses A user equipment (UE) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 5, 15-18, para. 221-285; a UE], the UE comprising: a processor [see Fig. 5, para. 144; a processor]; and a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 5, para. 143-144; a storage unit coupled with the processor], the processor configured to cause the UE to: transmit capability information of the UE to a network, wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports an intra-secondary node (intra-SN) primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see Fig. 15, para. 222-229; the UE provides at least one of the MN and the SN with information on capability, which indicates that the terminal supports a conditional PSCell change (intra-SN PScell change) to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell. The information on capability, which indicates that the terminal supports a conditional PSCell change, may include performance information related a conditional handover (CHO), and performance information related to a conditional PSCell change (CPSC); also see Fig. 16-18; intra-SN PScell change]; receive configuration information from the network [see Fig. 15, para. 222-229; receive configuration information (e.g., a conditional PSCell change (CPSC) decision, T-SN decision [intra-SN], condition for CHO decision) from the SN]; perform the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure, based on the received configuration information, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell [see Fig. 15, para. 222-229; perform the intra-SN PSCell change, based on the received configuration information, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell]; and transmit information regarding the target PSCell to the network [see Fig. 15, para. 222-229; transmit an RRC reconfiguration complete message based on the SN RAT to the SN (operation 15-25) and to the target PSCell (operation 15-50)].
In view of the above response, Hwang discloses every element of the amended independent claim 16.
Regarding independent claims 16-18 and 28, applicant argues that “Chen is directed to inter-SN PSCell change/SN change procedures. As the Examiner correctly noted in the Office Action on page 6, which states, in part "the inter-SN PScell change procedure causes the UE 402 to change from a PScell in the source SN 406 to another PScell in the target SN 408" (Office Action at pages 6-8, citing Chen at [[110]]-[[115]], and [[141]]- [[143]]). The Examiner's mapping for claims 16-19 and 28-29 relies entirely on Chen's disclosure of inter-SN conditional reconfiguration for PSCell change (changing from a source SN to a different target SN). Chen teaches the UE changing its PSCell by moving to a different Secondary Node, which is the opposite of the claimed intra-SN procedure in which the source and target PSCells remain under the same SN. Because the claims now recite the intra-SN procedure, Chen does not anticipate any of the amended independent claims” in page 10.
In response to applicant’s argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the source and target PSCells remain under the same SN) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Chen discloses A user equipment (UE) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 7, 9, para. 163-171, 190-199; a UE], the UE comprising: a processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190; processor 928]; and a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190, 197-198; memory 934 coupled with the processor 928], the processor configured to cause the UE to: transmit capability information of the UE to a network, wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports an intra-secondary node (intra-SN) primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see para. 110-115; transmit a UE capability report to the NW (e.g., the MN) to indicate that the UE supports conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change, and the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN; the UE reports different UE capabilities (intra-SN PSCell change) for SN addition/change in different MR-DC modes (e.g., EN-DC, NGEN-DC, or NE-DC); see Fig. 7, para. 163-171; the SN 706 may decide to use conditional reconfiguration for intra-SN PSCell change. The intra-SN PSCell change procedure may change the PSCell in the SN 706 from a cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the source PSCell) to another cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the target PSCell)]; receive configuration information from the network [see Fig. 7, step 716, para. 167; the UE 702 receives an RRC reconfiguration message for PSCell change from the MN 704]; perform the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure, based on the received configuration information, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell [see Fig. 7, para. 164-171; perform the intra-SN PSCell change procedure, based on the received RRC reconfiguration message, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell]; and transmit information regarding the target PSCell to the network [see Fig. 7, step 724, para. 164-171; the UE transmits a response message to the MN after determining that the conditional reconfiguration for PSCell change is applied/executed].
In view of the above response, Chen discloses every element of the amended independent claims 16-18 and 28.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-27 and 29-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, line 4, recites “the UE”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the SN”.
Claim 19, lines 3 and 7, recites “can be”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is”.
Claim 21, line 2, recites “can be”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is”.
Claim 29, lines 3, 6, and 7, recites “can be”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is”.
Claim 31, line 3, recites “can be”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is”.
Claims 20, 22-27 and 30 are also objected to since they are depended on the objected claims set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the SN" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 29-35 are also rejected since they are depended on the rejected claim set forth above.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2022/0369172 A1, hereinafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 16, Hwang discloses A user equipment (UE) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 5, 15-18, para. 221-285; a UE], the UE comprising:
a processor [see Fig. 5, para. 144; a processor]; and
a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 5, para. 143-144; a storage unit coupled with the processor], the processor configured to cause the UE to:
transmit capability information of the UE to a network, wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports an intra-secondary node (intra-SN) primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see Fig. 15 below, para. 222-229; the UE provides at least one of the MN and the SN with information on capability, which indicates that the terminal supports a conditional PSCell change (intra-SN PScell change) to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell. The information on capability, which indicates that the terminal supports a conditional PSCell change, may include performance information related a conditional handover (CHO), and performance information related to a conditional PSCell change (CPSC); also see Fig. 16-18; intra-SN PScell change];
receive configuration information from the network [see Fig. 15 below, para. 222-229; receive configuration information (e.g., a conditional PSCell change (CPSC) decision, T-SN decision [intra-SN], condition for CHO decision) from the SN];
perform the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure, based on the received configuration information, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell [see Fig. 15 below, para. 222-229; perform the intra-SN PSCell change, based on the received configuration information, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell]; and
transmit information regarding the target PSCell to the network [see Fig. 15 below, para. 222-229; transmit an RRC reconfiguration complete message based on the SN RAT to the SN (operation 15-25) and to the target PSCell (operation 15-50)].
PNG
media_image1.png
667
997
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 16-19 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2021/0099926 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses A user equipment (UE) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 7, 9, para. 163-171, 190-199; a UE], the UE comprising:
a processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190; processor 928]; and
a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190, 197-198; memory 934 coupled with the processor 928], the processor configured to cause the UE to:
transmit capability information of the UE to a network, wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports an intra-secondary node (intra-SN) primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see para. 110-115; transmit a UE capability report to the NW (e.g., the MN) to indicate that the UE supports conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change, and the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN; the UE reports different UE capabilities (intra-SN PSCell change) for SN addition/change in different MR-DC modes (e.g., EN-DC, NGEN-DC, or NE-DC); see Fig. 7, para. 163-171; the SN 706 may decide to use conditional reconfiguration for intra-SN PSCell change. The intra-SN PSCell change procedure may change the PSCell in the SN 706 from a cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the source PSCell) to another cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the target PSCell)];
receive configuration information from the network [see Fig. 7, step 716, para. 167; the UE 702 receives an RRC reconfiguration message for PSCell change from the MN 704];
perform the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure, based on the received configuration information, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell [see Fig. 7, para. 164-171; perform the intra-SN PSCell change procedure, based on the received RRC reconfiguration message, to switch from the source PSCell to the target PSCell]; and
transmit information regarding the target PSCell to the network [see Fig. 7, step 724, para. 164-171; the UE transmits a response message to the MN after determining that the conditional reconfiguration for PSCell change is applied/executed].
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses A master node (MN) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 7, 9, para. 163-171, 190-199; a MN], the MN comprising:
a processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190; processor 928]; and
a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190, 197-198; memory 934 coupled with the processor 928], the processor configured to cause the MN to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), capability information of the UE, wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports an intra-secondary node (intra-SN) primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see para. 110-115; receive, from a UE, a capability report of the UE indicating the UE supports conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change; the UE reports different UE capabilities (intra-SN PSCell change) for SN addition/change in different MR-DC modes (e.g., EN-DC, NGEN-DC, or NE-DC); see Fig. 7, para. 163-171; the SN 706 may decide to use conditional reconfiguration for intra-SN PSCell change. The intra-SN PSCell change procedure may change the PSCell in the SN 706 from a cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the source PSCell) to another cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the target PSCell)]; and
transmit an indicator associated with the capability information to a secondary node (SN), wherein the SN is communicatively coupled to the MN [see para. 110-115; the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN, wherein the SN is communicatively coupled to the MN (see Fig. 7, para. 163-171)].
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses A secondary node (SN) in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 7, 9, para. 163-171, 190-199; a SN], the SN comprising:
a processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190; processor 928]; and
a memory coupled with the processor [see Fig. 9, para. 190, 197-198; memory 934 coupled with the processor 928], the processor configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a master node (MN), an indicator associated with capability information of a user equipment (UE), wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports an intra-secondary node (intra-SN) primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see para. 110-115; a UE transmits a UE capability report to the NW (e.g., the MN) to indicate that the UE supports conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change, and the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN; the UE reports different UE capabilities (intra-SN PSCell change) for SN addition/change in different MR-DC modes (e.g., EN-DC, NGEN-DC, or NE-DC); see Fig. 7, para. 163-171; the SN 706 may decide to use conditional reconfiguration for intra-SN PSCell change. The intra-SN PSCell change procedure may change the PSCell in the SN 706 from a cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the source PSCell) to another cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the target PSCell)], and wherein the MN is communicatively coupled to the SN [see Fig. 7, para. 163-171; the MN is communicatively coupled to the SN]; and
transmit, to the MN, configuration information for use during the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure [see Fig. 7, para. 166; transmit, to the MN, an SN Modification Required message including a conditional reconfiguration command for PSCell change (also referred to as intra-SN PSCell change) containing configuration(s) of candidate cell(s) (e.g., candidate PSCell(s)) and execution condition(s)].
Regarding claim 28, Chen discloses A processor for wireless communication in a multi-radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario [see Fig. 7, 9, para. 163-171, 190-199; processor 928], the processor comprising:
at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to [see Fig. 9, para. 190, 197-198; a controller coupled with memory 934 and configured to cause the processor to]:
receive, from a master node (MN), an indicator associated with capability information of a user equipment (UE), wherein the capability information indicates that the UE supports an intra-secondary node (intra-SN) primary secondary cell (PSCell) switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell [see para. 110-115; a UE transmits a UE capability report to the NW (e.g., the MN) to indicate that the UE supports conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change, and the MN forwards the UE capability report that indicates support of the conditional reconfiguration to the SN; the UE reports different UE capabilities (intra-SN PSCell change) for SN addition/change in different MR-DC modes (e.g., EN-DC, NGEN-DC, or NE-DC); see Fig. 7, para. 163-171; the SN 706 may decide to use conditional reconfiguration for intra-SN PSCell change. The intra-SN PSCell change procedure may change the PSCell in the SN 706 from a cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the source PSCell) to another cell in the SN 706 (also referred to as the target PSCell)], and wherein the MN is communicatively coupled to the SN [see Fig. 7, para. 163-171; the MN is communicatively coupled to the SN]; and
transmit, to the MN, configuration information for use during the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure [see Fig. 7, para. 166; transmit, to the MN, an SN Modification Required message including a conditional reconfiguration command for PSCell change (also referred to as intra-SN PSCell change) containing configuration(s) of candidate cell(s) (e.g., candidate PSCell(s)) and execution condition(s)].
Regarding claims 19 and 29, Chen discloses wherein the indicator is at least one of: an explicit information element (IE) indicating that the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure can be supported; a capability identifier (ID) of the UE implying that the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure is supported by the UE; a maximum number of candidate PSCells can be prepared by the SN; a maximum number of candidate secondary cell groups (SCGs) is prepared by the SN; and one or more cells, wherein each cell within the one or more cells is prepared as a PSCell of a candidate SCG [see para. 113; the UE capability report to the NW is transmitted in an NR capability container].
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.
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.
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.
Claims 20-21 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of (ZTE CORPORATION ET AL: "Further consideration on conditional PSCell addition/change", 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113 electronic; R2-2101567, February 5, 2021; 5 pages, hereinafter “R2-2101567”).
Regarding claims 20 and 30, although Chen discloses the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure [see Fig. 7, 9, para. 110-115, 163-171, 190-199],
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: in response to receiving the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs, and in response to not receiving a conditional primary cell of a second cell group (PSCell) addition and change (CPAC) indicator, considering that the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs is for the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure.
However, R2-2101567 teaches in response to receiving the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs, and in response to not receiving a conditional primary cell of a second cell group (PSCell) addition and change (CPAC) indicator, considering that the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs is for a PSCell switch procedure [see page 3; the MN directly allocates the maximum number of candidate PSCell that the SN is allowed to configure].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “in response to receiving the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs, and in response to not receiving a conditional primary cell of a second cell group (PSCell) addition and change (CPAC) indicator, considering that the maximum number of candidate PSCells or the maximum number of candidate SCGs is for a PSCell switch procedure”, as taught by R2-2101567, into the system of Chen so that the SN is allowed to configure via CPC without MN involvement [see R2-2101567, page 3].
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: receive, from the MN, a maximum number of secondary cell groups (SCGs) that can be configured as a serving SCG.
However, R2-2101567 teaches the SN to receive, from the MN, a maximum number of secondary cell groups (SCGs) that can be configured as a serving SCG [see page 3; the MN directly allocates the maximum number of candidate PSCell that the SN is allowed to configure].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the SN to receive, from the MN, a maximum number of secondary cell groups (SCGs) that can be configured as a serving SCG”, as taught by R2-2101567, into the system of Chen so that the SN is allowed to configure via CPC without MN involvement [see R2-2101567, page 3].
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of (ZTE "Discussion on CPA and CPC" 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #111-e, R3-210183;4 February 2021; 9 pages, hereinafter “R3-210183”).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the configuration information includes one of: configuration information regarding one or more candidate secondary cell groups (SCGs), wherein each candidate SCG within the one or more candidate SCGs is associated with one PSCell; and configuration information regarding one SCG, wherein the one SCG is associated with two or more candidate PSCells.
However, R3-210183 teaches the configuration information includes one of: configuration information regarding one or more candidate secondary cell groups (SCGs), wherein each candidate SCG within the one or more candidate SCGs is associated with one PSCell; and configuration information regarding one SCG, wherein the one SCG is associated with two or more candidate PSCells [see page 6; each candidate SN decides for the one or more candidate PSCells and other related candidate SCG SCells and provides the new SCG radio resource configuration to the MN within an SN RRC configuration message contained in the SN Addition Request Acknowledge message].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the configuration information includes one of: configuration information regarding one or more candidate secondary cell groups (SCGs), wherein each candidate SCG within the one or more candidate SCGs is associated with one PSCell; and configuration information regarding one SCG, wherein the one SCG is associated with two or more candidate PSCells”, as taught by R3-210183, into the system of Chen so that it would provide conditional PScell addition [see R3-210183, page 6].
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wang (US 2022/0264393 A1).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, although Chen discloses the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure [see Fig. 7, 9, para. 110-115, 163-171, 190-199],
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the configuration information includes at least one of: an explicit indicator associated with a secondary cell group (SCG) indicating whether the SCG is a serving SCG; an explicit indicator associated with the SCG indicating whether the SCG is a non-serving SCG; an activation indication associated with the SCG; a deactivation indication associated with the SCG; an explicit indicator associated with a PSCell indicating whether it is a serving PSCell; an explicit indicator associated with the PSCell indicating whether it is a non-serving PSCell; one or more execution conditions of the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure; one or more PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more SCGs prepared by the SN; one or more serving PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more serving SCGs prepared by the SN; an activated or deactivated state of the serving PSCells prepared by the SN; and an activated or deactivated state of the serving SCGs prepared by the SN.
However, Wang teaches wherein the configuration information includes at least one of: an explicit indicator associated with a secondary cell group (SCG) indicating whether the SCG is a serving SCG; an explicit indicator associated with the SCG indicating whether the SCG is a non-serving SCG; an activation indication associated with the SCG; a deactivation indication associated with the SCG; an explicit indicator associated with a PSCell indicating whether it is a serving PSCell; an explicit indicator associated with the PSCell indicating whether it is a non-serving PSCell; one or more execution conditions of a PSCell switch procedure; one or more PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more SCGs prepared by the SN; one or more serving PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more serving SCGs prepared by the SN; an activated or deactivated state of the serving PSCells prepared by the SN; and an activated or deactivated state of the serving SCGs prepared by the SN [see para. 105; when multiple SCGs are configured on the network side, the network side can indicate the activation state of each SCG, that is, multiple SCGs can be active simultaneously. Further, the network side can simultaneously perform PSCell changes of multiple SCGs through one network command].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “wherein the configuration information includes at least one of: an explicit indicator associated with a secondary cell group (SCG) indicating whether the SCG is a serving SCG; an explicit indicator associated with the SCG indicating whether the SCG is a non-serving SCG; an activation indication associated with the SCG; a deactivation indication associated with the SCG; an explicit indicator associated with a PSCell indicating whether it is a serving PSCell; an explicit indicator associated with the PSCell indicating whether it is a non-serving PSCell; one or more execution conditions of a PSCell switch procedure; one or more PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more SCGs prepared by the SN; one or more serving PSCells prepared by the SN; one or more serving SCGs prepared by the SN; an activated or deactivated state of the serving PSCells prepared by the SN; and an activated or deactivated state of the serving SCGs prepared by the SN”, as taught by Wang, into the system of Chen so that the latency of changing the PSCell can be reduced, that is, the latency of data interruption of the terminal device can be reduced [see Wang, para. 20].
Claims 24, 26-27, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Futaki et al. (US 2022/0086704 A1, hereinafter “Futaki”).
Regarding claims 24 and 34, although Chen discloses the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure [see Fig. 7, 9, para. 110-115, 163-171, 190-199],
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: receive, by a centralized unit (CU) of the SN and from a first distributed unit (DU) of the SN, an occurrence indicator of the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure after the first DU sends a PSCell switch command to the UE.
However, Futaki teaches the SN to receive, by a centralized unit (CU) of the SN and from a first distributed unit (DU) of the SN, an occurrence indicator of a PSCell switch procedure after the first DU sends a PSCell switch command to the UE [see Fig. 6, para. 64; the CU 21 generates an RRC message (e.g., NR RRCReconfiguration message) containing the received radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig) and include it in the SN MODIFICATION REQUIRED message (step 603). In step 601, the CU 21 transmits one or both of the condition for the UE 3 to exit the conditional PSCell change and the value of the validity timer to the DU 22B, together with the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change. Then the DU 22B includes them in the radio resource configuration (e.g., CellGroupConfig), which contains the initiation condition of the conditional PSCell change, and transmit it to the CU 21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the SN to receive, by a centralized unit (CU) of the SN and from a first distributed unit (DU) of the SN, an occurrence indicator of a PSCell switch procedure after the first DU sends a PSCell switch command to the UE”, as taught by Futaki, into the system of Chen so that it would allowing an SN to be aware of a satisfaction of an execution condition of a conditional PSCell change (or an initiation of the conditional PSCell change) [see Futaki, para. 11].
Regarding claim 26, although Chen discloses the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure [see Fig. 7, 9, para. 110-115, 163-171, 190-199],
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: receive a random access (RA) request or a data packet by a second distributed unit (DU) of the SN from the UE; and in response to receiving the RA request or the data packet, transmit, by the second DU of the SN to a centralized unit (CU) of the SN, successful information of the intra-SN PSCell switch procedure, wherein the second DU of the SN is associated with the target PSCell.
However, Futaki teaches the SN to receive a random access (RA) request or a data packet by a second distributed unit (DU) of the SN from the UE; and in response to receiving the RA request or the data packet, transmit, by the second DU of the SN to a centralized unit (CU) of the SN, successful information of a PSCell switch procedure, wherein the second DU of the SN is associated with the target PSCell [see Fig. 6, step 610, para. 71; the UE initiates access (random access procedure) to the target PSCell (the cell served by the target DU 22B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the SN to receive a random access (RA) request or a data packet by a second distributed unit (DU) of the SN from the UE; and in response to receiving the RA request or the data packet, transmit, by the second DU of the SN to a centralized unit (CU) of the SN, successful information of a PSCell switch procedure, wherein the second DU of the SN is associated with the target PSCell”, as taught by Futaki, into the system of Chen so that it would allowing an SN to be aware of a satisfaction of an execution condition of a conditional PSCell change (or an initiation of the conditional PSCell change) [see Futaki, para. 11].
Regarding claim 27, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to cause the SN to: in response to receiving the successful information from the second DU of the SN, transmit, by the CU of the SN to the MN, a message including the successful information.
However, Futaki teaches the SN to: in response to receiving the successful information from the second DU of the SN, transmit, by the CU of the SN to the MN, a message including the successful information [see Fig. 6, para. 62-63, 71; the UE initiates access (random access procedure) to the target PSCell (the cell served by the target DU 22B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the SN to: in response to receiving the successful information from the second DU of the SN, transmit, by the CU of the SN to the MN, a message including the successful information”, as taught by Futaki, into the system of Chen so that it would allowing an SN to be aware of a satisfaction of an execution condition of a conditional PSCell change (or an initiation of the conditional PSCell change) [see Futaki, para. 11].
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of (Moderator (China Telecom) "Email discussion summary for [RAN-R18-WS-eMBB-China Telecom]" 3GPP TSG RAN Rel-18 workshop, RWS-210517; July 2, 2021; 71 pages, hereinafter “China Telecom”).
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein: in response to the source PSCell being in an activated state, the target PSCell is in the activated state; or in response to the source PSCell being in a deactivated state, the target PSCell is in the deactivated state; or the target PSCell is by default in the activated state.
However, China Telecom teaches in response to the source PSCell being in an activated state, the target PSCell is in the activated state; or in response to the source PSCell being in a deactivated state, the target PSCell is in the deactivated state; or the target PSCell is by default in the activated state [see page 5, lines 7-9; activate/deactivate an SCG among the configured SCGs dynamically based on certain criterions such as the service requirements or radio link quality, and so on].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “in response to the source PSCell being in an activated state, the target PSCell is in the activated state; or in response to the source PSCell being in a deactivated state, the target PSCell is in the deactivated state; or the target PSCell is by default in the activated state”, as taught by China Telecom, into the system of Chen so that it would have more than one SCG configured [see China Telecom, page 5].
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 BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights