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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 01/05/2026.
The amendment filed on 01/05/2026 has rendered moot the claim objections contained in the previous office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-18 are currently pending.
Claims 3, 9, 15 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, 16-18 are currently amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-18 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Chen Chen et al (US 20190223073 A1) in view of Li Chen ( hereinafter “Li”, US 20220046502 A1).
For Claim 1, Chen discloses a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0069, lines 1-3, that In action 112, UE 102 may send a measurement report(s) to source base station 104 when a measurement event criterion is met), comprising:
receiving, from a source cell, a conditional handover (CHO) command configuring the UE to perform a CHO procedure to handover to a target cell in response to satisfying a CHO condition (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0071, lines 1-7, that source base station 104 may send CHO command #1 (or CHO configuration) to UE 102 in action 130 in response to Handover Acknowledgement message #1);
receiving, from the source cell after receiving the CHO command, a regular handover (HO) command configuring the UE to perform a HO procedure to handover to the target cell (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0086, lines 1-7, that a conventional handover command instructing the UE to connect to a target cell, etc. For example, as described above, after receiving the notification from the UE [about triggering condition associated with the CHO command being fulfilled], and while the response timer is active and running, the source base station may transmit a different handover command to the UE. As such, the process 300 may execute, in action 360, the different handover command that is received from the source base station).
Chen fails to expressly disclose determining whether the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, wherein determining whether the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure comprises determining at least one of: whether the UE has started detaching from the source cell, whether the UE has started synchronizing with the target cell, or whether the UE has started a random access procedure with the target cell; and in response to determining that the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, discarding the regular HO command and continuing with the CHO procedure to complete handover to the target cell.
However, Li, in the analogous art of handover procedures, discloses determining whether the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, wherein determining whether the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure comprises determining at least one of: whether the UE has started detaching from the source cell, whether the UE has started synchronizing with the target cell, or whether the UE has started a random access procedure with the target cell (Li teaches, in ¶ 0058, receiving the indication information transmitted by the source cell, after the terminal initiates random access to a target cell. Li explains, in ¶ 0063, that the indication information includes … Information A: a handover command. The handover command is a handover command with no conditional handover trigger condition, which may also be referred to as a normal handover command); and in response to determining that the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, discarding the regular HO command and continuing with the CHO procedure to complete handover to the target cell (Li teaches, in ¶ 0044, Specifically, after the terminal receives the indication information from the source cell, the terminal may ignore the indication information, and/or continue execution of the first conditional handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Chen with the indication information taught in Li. The motivation is to resolve the lack of a corresponding handling procedure when a terminal receives indication information from a source cell during a conditional handover procedure [Li: ¶ 0015].
For Claim 4, Chen discloses a method, further comprising: releasing any stored CHO configurations after successfully completing the CHO procedure (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0105, lines 18-21, that After successfully random access to target cell #1, UE 402 may transmit a CHO Complete message to target base station 406 in action 440. In one implementation, after the CHO command is executed and the HO is successful, other CHO commands (e.g., CHO command #2) stored in UE 402 may be released).
For Claim 5, Chen discloses a method, wherein the CHO condition comprises a conditional handover event based on determining that a signal strength of the target cell is better than that of the source cell by an offset (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0074, lines 1-7, that a triggering condition may be used to determine whether a corresponding CHO command can be executed. The UE may continuously evaluate the triggering condition of each CHO command that remains valid. If a triggering condition is satisfied (e.g., a target cell signal quality is above a given threshold within a time period TTT)).
For Claim 6, Chen discloses a method, further comprising: starting the CHO procedure in response to determining that the CHO condition is met, wherein the CHO condition also triggers the UE to send a measurement report to the source cell according to the regular HO procedure (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0074, lines 5-9, that If a triggering condition is satisfied (e.g., a target cell signal quality is above a given threshold within a time period TTT), the UE may select from one of the following options (e.g., based on the NW configuration, based on predefined configuration, etc.): [0075] (1) The UE may directly execute the corresponding CHO command without any notification to the source base station), wherein the CHO condition also triggers the UE to send a measurement report to the source cell according to the HO procedure (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0069, lines 1-4, that UE 102 may send a measurement report(s) to source base station 104 when a measurement event criterion is met (e.g., when an event is triggered by a lower threshold set for a neighboring cell(s))).
For Claim 7, Chen discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus being a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0023, lines 1-6, that a User Equipment (UE) is disclosed, the UE comprising: one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon) and configured to:
receive, from a source cell, a conditional handover (CHO) command configuring the UE to perform a CHO procedure to handover to a target cell in response to satisfying a CHO condition (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0071, lines 1-7, that source base station 104 may send CHO command #1 (or CHO configuration) to UE 102 in action 130 in response to Handover Acknowledgement message #1);
receive, from the source cell after receiving the CHO command, a regular handover (HO) command configuring the UE to perform a HO procedure to handover to the target cell (Chen teaches, in ¶ 0086, lines 1-7, that a conventional handover command instructing the UE to connect to a target cell, etc. For example, as described above, after receiving the notification from the UE [about triggering condition associated with the CHO command being fulfilled], and while the response timer is active and running, the source base station may transmit a different handover command to the UE. As such, the process 300 may execute, in action 360, the different handover command that is received from the source base station).
Chen fails to expressly disclose determining whether the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, wherein determining whether the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure comprises determining at least one of: whether the UE has started detaching from the source cell, whether the UE has started synchronizing with the target cell, or whether the UE has started a random access procedure with the target cell; and in response to determining that the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, discarding the regular HO command and continuing with the CHO procedure to complete handover to the target cell.
However, Li, in the analogous art of handover procedures, discloses determining whether the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, wherein determining whether the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure comprises determining at least one of: whether the UE has started detaching from the source cell, whether the UE has started synchronizing with the target cell, or whether the UE has started a random access procedure with the target cell (Li teaches, in ¶ 0058, receiving the indication information transmitted by the source cell, after the terminal initiates random access to a target cell. Li explains, in ¶ 0063, that the indication information includes … Information A: a handover command. The handover command is a handover command with no conditional handover trigger condition, which may also be referred to as a normal handover command); and in response to determining that the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, discarding the regular HO command and continuing with the CHO procedure to complete handover to the target cell (Li teaches, in ¶ 0044, Specifically, after the terminal receives the indication information from the source cell, the terminal may ignore the indication information, and/or continue execution of the first conditional handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Chen with the indication information taught in Li. The motivation is to resolve the lack of a corresponding handling procedure when a terminal receives indication information from a source cell during a conditional handover procedure [Li: ¶ 0015].
For Claims 10-12, please refer to the rejection of Claims 4-6, above.
For Claim 13, please refer to the rejection of Claim 7, above.
For Claims 16-18, please refer to the rejection of Claims 4-6, above
Claims 2, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Chen Chen et al (US 20190223073 A1) in view of Li Chen ( hereinafter “Li”, US 20220046502 A1) as applied to claims 1, 7, or 13 above, and further in view of Le Yan et al (US 20220264401 A1).
For Claims 2, 8, 14, Chen discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that
in response to determining that the UE has not started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, suspending the CHO procedure and performing the regular HO procedure according to the regular HO command.
However, Yan, in the analogous art of handover procedures, discloses in response to determining that the UE has not started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, suspending the CHO procedure and performing the regular HO procedure according to the regular HO command (Yan teaches, in ¶ 0146, that Correspondingly, before the UE determines, based on the CHO configuration information, the target cell that meets the CHO execution condition (i.e., in response to determining that the UE has NOT started the CHO), if the UE receives the conventional handover message, the UE stops the CHO procedure (for example, the UE stops a procedure of attempting to determine the target cell that meets the CHO execution condition in the at least one candidate cell), and performs a conventional handover procedure based on the conventional handover message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Chen with the alternative handover technique taught in Yan. The motivation is to improve a handover success rate and handover robustness [Yan: ¶ 0004].
Response to Amendment
Examiner agrees with Applicant that the amendment forecloses the Examiner’s alternative Interpretation. Thereby, constituting a change in the scope of the independent claims. However, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the cited combination of references does not disclose or suggest “discarding a regular HO command and continuing CHO execution when CHO execution (detaching, synchronizing, or random access) has already started (“in response to determining that the UE has started execution of the CHO procedure prior to receiving the regular HO command, discarding the regular HO command and continuing with the CHO procedure to complete the handover to the target cell),” (page 10 of 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Li teaches, in ¶ 0058, receiving the indication information transmitted by the source cell, after the terminal initiates random access to a target cell. Li explains, in ¶ 0063, that the indication information received is a handover command, more specifically, a normal handover command. Li further teaches, in ¶ 0044, Specifically, after the terminal receives the indication information from the source cell, the terminal may ignore the indication information (i.e., ignores the normal handover command), and/or continue execution of the first conditional handover.
Thus, Examiner concludes that the cited references render amended claim 1 obvious, and not yet in condition for allowance.
Additionally, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s remarks that Chen explicitly teaches the opposite-prioritizing the conventional/regular HO command over the ongoing CHO procedure. The reason being Applicant’s claims are not solely directed to prioritizing the ongoing CHO procedure over the conventional/regular HO command. For instance, instant claim 2 prioritizes the conventional/regular HO command over the CHO procedure. In other words, the Chen reference is analogous and pertinent to the claimed invention, as filed.
Moreover, Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.01 states: “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)”.
For at least the above reasons, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claim 1, and corresponding independent claims 7 and 13, are not yet patentable over the cited references. Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16-18 are also not yet in condition for allowance for at least being rejected on their own merits, as well as for depending from rejected base claims.
In light of the above rebuttal, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-18, contained in this office action, is hereby made final.
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 MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412