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 AMENDMENTS entered on October 27, 2025 for patent application 18/460,351 filed on September 1, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150780).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an apparatus, comprising: a memory (paras. [0058] and [0059]); and a processor (para. [0058]) configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, perform operations comprising: receive conditional handover configuration information from a cellular base station (Fig. 2, element 210, para. [0078]), wherein the conditional handover configuration information indicates one or more conditions for performing handover and a plurality of cell candidates (Fig. 2, element 220, para. [0079]); determine that multiple cell candidates meet the one or more conditions for performing handover (paras. [0093] and [0094]); select a cell candidate to which to perform handover from the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on one or more wireless device conditions (Fig. 4, para. [0101]; “After making the CHO decision in action 416 by considering different factors, such as the UE mobility state, UE targeting services, traffic load condition, source base station's coverage and other statistical information, source base station 404 may send CHO Command Request(s) (or CHO Request(s)) to the corresponding target base station(s).”); and perform handover to the selected cell candidate (Fig. 4, paras. [0103]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more wireless device conditions include at least a jitter sensitive application or service based condition (Fig. 4, para. [0101]; “After making the CHO decision in action 416 by considering different factors, such as the UE mobility state, UE targeting services, traffic load condition, source base station's coverage and other statistical information, source base station 404 may send CHO Command Request(s) (or CHO Request(s)) to the corresponding target base station(s).” “Source base station’s coverage” can be seen as a service based condition.).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses a wireless device, comprising: an antenna; a radio operably coupled to the antenna; and a processor operably coupled to the radio; wherein the wireless device is configured to: receive conditional handover configuration information from a cellular base station (Fig. 2, element 210, para. [0078]), wherein the conditional handover configuration information indicates one or more conditions for performing handover and a plurality of cell candidates (Fig. 2, element 220, para. [0079]); determine that multiple cell candidates meet the one or more conditions for performing handover (paras. [0093] and [0094]); select a cell candidate to which to perform handover from the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on one or more wireless device conditions Fig. 4, para. [0101]; “After making the CHO decision in action 416 by considering different factors, such as the UE mobility state, UE targeting services, traffic load condition, source base station's coverage and other statistical information, source base station 404 may send CHO Command Request(s) (or CHO Request(s)) to the corresponding target base station(s).”); and perform handover to the selected cell candidate (Fig. 4, paras. [0103]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses the wireless device of claim 10, wherein the one or more wireless device conditions include whether one or more jitter sensitive applications or services are active for the wireless device (Fig. 4, para. [0101]; “After making the CHO decision in action 416 by considering different factors, such as the UE mobility state, UE targeting services, traffic load condition, source base station's coverage and other statistical information, source base station 404 may send CHO Command Request(s) (or CHO Request(s)) to the corresponding target base station(s).” “Source base station’s coverage” can be seen as a service.).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses a method, comprising: at a wireless device: receiving conditional handover configuration information from a cellular base station (Fig. 2, element 210, para. [0078]), wherein the conditional handover configuration information indicates one or more conditions for performing handover and a plurality of cell candidates (Fig. 2, element 220, para. [0079]); determining that multiple cell candidates meet the one or more conditions for performing handover (paras. [0093] and [0094]); prioritizing the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover, wherein the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover are prioritized based at least in part on cell characteristics for the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover, wherein the cell characteristics used to prioritize the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover are selected based on one or more wireless device conditions (para. [0093]; “when multiple CHO commands fulfill their triggering conditions, the CHO command with the highest CHO command priority (also referred to as “HO priority” for brevity in the present disclosure) may be executed first in some of the present embodiments.”); selecting a highest priority cell candidate among the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover to which to perform handover (Fig. 4, para. [0101]; “After making the CHO decision in action 416 by considering different factors, such as the UE mobility state, UE targeting services, traffic load condition, source base station's coverage and other statistical information, source base station 404 may send CHO Command Request(s) (or CHO Request(s)) to the corresponding target base station(s).”); and performing handover to the selected cell candidate (Fig. 4, paras. [0103]-[0105]).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150780) in view of Fan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0050608).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cell candidate to which to perform handover is selected further based at least in part on one or more of cell candidate duplexing configurations, slot durations, or downlink uplink transmission periodicities for each of the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on the one or more wireless device conditions including at least a jitter sensitive application or service based condition. However, in analogous art, Fan discloses “a method in a first base station is provided. The method includes the steps of: obtaining a Time Division Duplex (TDD) configuration of a second base station; calculating a TDD configuration difference between the TDD configuration of the second base station and a TDD configuration of the first base station; and transmitting the TDD configuration difference to a wireless device to enable the wireless device to initiate a handover from the first base station to the second base station at least partly based on the TDD configuration difference (para. [0008]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the cell candidate to which to perform handover is selected further based at least in part on one or more of cell candidate duplexing configurations, slot durations, or downlink uplink transmission periodicities for each of the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on the one or more wireless device conditions including at least a jitter sensitive application or service based condition. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for well-known handover conditions to be used.
Claims 4, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150780) in view of Kumar et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0014227).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more wireless device conditions include at least a dual subscriber identity module dual standby based condition. However, in analogous art, Kumar discloses that “a UE may proactively reselect to a cell on one or both of the subscriptions to achieve a maximum or minimum overlap based on the DSDA or DSDS mode. For instance, for an idle mode subscription, the UE may prioritize reselection to a cell that meets a desired DRX criterion either by using a start offset as a selection criterion or by selecting a suitable cell when multiple cells satisfy the selection criteria. In a connected mode, the UE may use an event report mechanism or a conditional handover configuration to select a cell that has a desired DRX configuration (para. [0037]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the one or more wireless device conditions to include at least a dual subscriber identity module dual standby based condition. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known device feature to be utilized in order to improve the handover process.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen and Kumar discloses the apparatus of claim 4, and further discloses the operations further comprising: determine a frequency combination for dual subscriber identity module dual standby operation for each of the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover, wherein the cell candidate to which to perform handover is selected further based at least in part on the frequency combinations for dual subscriber identity module dual standby operation for each of the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on the one or more wireless device conditions including at least a dual subscriber identity module dual standby based condition (Kumar, paras. [0171]-[0174]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.).
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the wireless device of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more wireless device conditions include whether the wireless device is operating in a dual subscriber identity module (SIM) dual standby mode. However, in analogous art, Kumar discloses that “a UE may proactively reselect to a cell on one or both of the subscriptions to achieve a maximum or minimum overlap based on the DSDA or DSDS mode. For instance, for an idle mode subscription, the UE may prioritize reselection to a cell that meets a desired DRX criterion either by using a start offset as a selection criterion or by selecting a suitable cell when multiple cells satisfy the selection criteria. In a connected mode, the UE may use an event report mechanism or a conditional handover configuration to select a cell that has a desired DRX configuration (para. [0037]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the one or more wireless device conditions include whether the wireless device is operating in a dual subscriber identity module (SIM) dual standby mode. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known device feature to be utilized in order to improve the handover process.
Claims 6, 7, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150780) in view of Bongaarts et al. (Pat. No.: US 11,382,018).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more wireless device conditions include at least a wireless device speed based condition. However, in analogous art, Bongaarts discloses that “when the UE is moving above a threshold speed, the handover from a WAN to the small cell can be prevented from occurring. In some cases, a call quality or signal strength provided by the candidate cell can be higher than a call quality or signal strength provided by the serving cell. Nevertheless, if a speed of the UE is above the threshold speed, for example, the handover event can be prevented from occurring, and the UE can remain connected to the WAN. In some instances, for example, when the WAN is no longer an option to function as a serving cell, the handover event can occur regardless of the speed of the UE being above the threshold speed (col. 2, ln. 20-31),” wherein “the motion data threshold can be based at least in part on a frequency of the wireless signal. For example, as the frequency increases, a motion data threshold can decrease (col. 15, ln. 11-14),” such that the system is capable of “determining the handover event based on the instantaneous speed being below a threshold speed value and the average speed being above a threshold average speed value, the state of the UE being the idle state, the one or more congestion characteristics, and on the frequency used by the candidate cell (see the language of claim 1.).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the one or more wireless device conditions to include at least a wireless device speed based condition. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would improve the handover process by allowing for additional relevant information to be used.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen and Kumar discloses the apparatus of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the cell candidate to which to perform handover is selected further based at least in part on cell candidate operating frequencies for each of the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on the one or more wireless device conditions including at least a wireless device speed based condition (Kumar, col. 15, ln. 11-14, see also the language of claim 1. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses the wireless device of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more wireless device conditions include whether the wireless device is operating in a high speed mode. However, in analogous art, Bongaarts discloses that “when the UE is moving above a threshold speed, the handover from a WAN to the small cell can be prevented from occurring. In some cases, a call quality or signal strength provided by the candidate cell can be higher than a call quality or signal strength provided by the serving cell. Nevertheless, if a speed of the UE is above the threshold speed, for example, the handover event can be prevented from occurring, and the UE can remain connected to the WAN. In some instances, for example, when the WAN is no longer an option to function as a serving cell, the handover event can occur regardless of the speed of the UE being above the threshold speed (col. 2, ln. 20-31),” wherein “the motion data threshold can be based at least in part on a frequency of the wireless signal. For example, as the frequency increases, a motion data threshold can decrease (col. 15, ln. 11-14),” such that the system is capable of “determining the handover event based on the instantaneous speed being below a threshold speed value and the average speed being above a threshold average speed value, the state of the UE being the idle state, the one or more congestion characteristics, and on the frequency used by the candidate cell (see the language of claim 1.).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the one or more wireless device conditions include whether the wireless device is operating in a high speed mode. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would improve the handover process by allowing for additional relevant information to be used.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses the method of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more wireless device conditions include one or more of: a jitter reduction based condition; a dual subscriber identity module dual standby based condition; a wireless device speed based condition; or an uplink performance based condition. However, in analogous art, Bongaarts discloses that “when the UE is moving above a threshold speed, the handover from a WAN to the small cell can be prevented from occurring. In some cases, a call quality or signal strength provided by the candidate cell can be higher than a call quality or signal strength provided by the serving cell. Nevertheless, if a speed of the UE is above the threshold speed, for example, the handover event can be prevented from occurring, and the UE can remain connected to the WAN. In some instances, for example, when the WAN is no longer an option to function as a serving cell, the handover event can occur regardless of the speed of the UE being above the threshold speed (col. 2, ln. 20-31),” wherein “the motion data threshold can be based at least in part on a frequency of the wireless signal. For example, as the frequency increases, a motion data threshold can decrease (col. 15, ln. 11-14),” such that the system is capable of “determining the handover event based on the instantaneous speed being below a threshold speed value and the average speed being above a threshold average speed value, the state of the UE being the idle state, the one or more congestion characteristics, and on the frequency used by the candidate cell (see the language of claim 1.).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the one or more wireless device conditions include one or more of: a jitter reduction based condition; a dual subscriber identity module dual standby based condition; a wireless device speed based condition; or an uplink performance based condition. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would improve the handover process by allowing for additional relevant information to be used.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150780) in view of Ramkull et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0014762).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more wireless device conditions include at least an uplink performance based condition. However, in analogous art, Ramkull states that “[a] method is disclosed for a network node of a cellular communication network adapted for application of an uplink triggered cell handover functionality. The uplink triggered cell handover functionality may comprise initiating a handover when it is determined that an uplink channel performance metric relating to a serving cell falls on a first side of (e.g. is lower than) an uplink handover threshold (Abstract),” wherein “[t]he functionality may, for example, comprise initiating a handover when it is determined that an uplink channel performance metric relating to a serving cell falls on a first side of (e.g. is lower than) a handover threshold (para. [0010]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the one or more wireless device conditions to include at least an uplink performance based condition. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would improve the handover process by allowing for additional relevant information to be used.
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the wireless device of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more wireless device conditions include whether one or more uplink centric or uplink high reliability applications or services are active for the wireless device. However, in analogous art, Ramkull states that “[a] method is disclosed for a network node of a cellular communication network adapted for application of an uplink triggered cell handover functionality. The uplink triggered cell handover functionality may comprise initiating a handover when it is determined that an uplink channel performance metric relating to a serving cell falls on a first side of (e.g. is lower than) an uplink handover threshold (Abstract),” wherein “[t]he functionality may, for example, comprise initiating a handover when it is determined that an uplink channel performance metric relating to a serving cell falls on a first side of (e.g. is lower than) a handover threshold (para. [0010]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the one or more wireless device conditions to include whether one or more uplink centric or uplink high reliability applications or services are active for the wireless device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would improve the handover process by allowing for additional relevant information to be used.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150780) in view of Ramkull et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0014762) and Tseng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0222367).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen and Ramkull discloses the apparatus of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cell candidate to which to perform handover is selected further based at least in part on whether supplementary uplink is configured for each of the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on the one or more wireless device conditions including at least an uplink performance based condition. However, in analogous art, Tseng discloses “determining, by the UE, whether to select a supplementary uplink (SUL) component carrier for building or resuming a radio resource control (RRC) connection with a serving cell during at least one of: a cell (re)selection procedure, having a cell selection or reselection procedure; or a UL/SUL component carrier decision procedure; wherein the determination of whether to select the SUL component carrier is based at least in part on a mobility state of the UE (para. [0015]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Ramkull to allow for the cell candidate to which to perform handover is selected further based at least in part on whether supplementary uplink is configured for each of the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on the one or more wireless device conditions including at least an uplink performance based condition. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would improve the handover process by allowing for additional relevant information and well-known techniques to be used.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150780) in view of Kang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0168684).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the wireless device of claim 10, wherein to select a cell candidate to which to perform handover, the wireless device is further configured to: determine cell priority values for each of the cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover for each of the one or more wireless device conditions, wherein the cell priority values are determined based at least in part on cell characteristics for the cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover (para. [0093]); but does not explicitly disclose that the wireless device is further configured to weight the cell priority values based at least in part on relative priority of the one or more wireless device conditions; and determine an overall cell priority value for each of the plurality of cell candidates based at least in part on the weighted cell priority values, wherein a cell candidate with a best overall cell priority value is selected as the cell candidate to which to perform handover. However, in analogous art, Kang discloses that a “BS may perform a handover procedure with at least one UE by transmitting the priority information to the at least one UE. In an embodiment of the disclosure, the at least one UE may select a BS on which a handover procedure is to be performed, based on the priority information, and may perform the handover procedure with the selected BS. For example, the at least one UE may select, as a target BS, a BS having a high weight in an order of priorities, and may perform a handover procedure with the selected BS. A handover procedure refers to a technology of changing a serving BS from a current BS (a source BS) to a different new BS (a target BS), the serving BS providing a service to a UE in a connected mode state (para. [0097]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the wireless device to be further configured to weight the cell priority values based at least in part on relative priority of the one or more wireless device conditions; and determine an overall cell priority value for each of the plurality of cell candidates based at least in part on the weighted cell priority values, wherein a cell candidate with a best overall cell priority value is selected as the cell candidate to which to perform handover. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would the system to have further gradations in place to help determine the best cell for a handoff, which could improve system performance.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen and Kang discloses the wireless device of claim 11, and further discloses wherein the overall cell priority value for each respective cell candidate of the plurality of cell candidates is determined by adding together the weighted cell priority values for the respective cell candidate for each of the one or more wireless device conditions (Chen, para. [0093]; “In some aspects of the present embodiments, if there are more than one triggered CHO command with the same HO priority, the CHO command with the highest target cell signal quality (e.g., on RSRP level) may have the first priority (i.e., may be executed first);” Kang, para. [0097]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150780) in view of Gustafsson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0095182).
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses the method of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining which wireless device conditions of a plurality of possible wireless device conditions are applicable. However, in analogous art, Gustafsson discloses that “FIG. 20 depicts a method 1400 by a first base station associated with a non-preferred access network. At step 1402, the first base station receives, from a second base station associated with a preferred access network, a request for a first handover of a wireless device to the first base station associated with the non-preferred access network. At step 1404, the first base station receives, from the second base station associated with the preferred access network, information indicating that the wireless device is subject to EPS fallback and that a second handover of the wireless device should be initiated as soon as a condition is no longer fulfilled or applicable. At step 1406, the first base station determines that the condition is no longer fulfilled or applicable. At step 1408, in response to determining that the condition is no longer fulfilled or applicable, the first base station initiates the second handover of the wireless device to the second base station associated with the preferred access network (para. [0181]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kang to allow for determining which wireless device conditions of a plurality of possible wireless device conditions are applicable. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for unnecessary or redundant conditions to be ignored, which could improve the performance of the system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0150780) in view of Tseng et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0222367).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chen and Ramkull discloses the method of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cell characteristics include one or more of: cell duplexing configuration; cell slot duration; cell downlink uplink transmission periodicity; cell frequency; cell frequency band combination; or cell supplementary uplink configuration. However, in analogous art, Tseng discloses “determining, by the UE, whether to select a supplementary uplink (SUL) component carrier for building or resuming a radio resource control (RRC) connection with a serving cell during at least one of: a cell (re)selection procedure, having a cell selection or reselection procedure; or a UL/SUL component carrier decision procedure; wherein the determination of whether to select the SUL component carrier is based at least in part on a mobility state of the UE (para. [0015]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to allow for the cell characteristics to include one or more of: cell duplexing configuration; cell slot duration; cell downlink uplink transmission periodicity; cell frequency; cell frequency band combination; or cell supplementary uplink configuration. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would improve the handover process by allowing for additional relevant information and well-known techniques to be used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9:
Regarding claim 1, the cited references fail to teach or suggest at least "select a cell candidate to which to perform handover from the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on one or more wireless device conditions." With regard to this feature, the Office Action cites Chen at Fig. 4 and [0101].
[0101] describes conditional handover (CHO) decision 416, which is clearly performed by the gNB prior to transmitting CHO commands to the UE. This mapping is not consistent with any reasonable interpretation of claim 1 for at least the following reasons.
The determination of 416 occurs before the CHO commands are transmitted to the
UE. Notably, Chen's step 220 (cited for claim l's receive step) relies on the "stored CHO commands" received in step 210. In context of Chen's Fig. 4, it is clear that
the determination of 416 leads to the CHO commands 430 and 432.
The determination of 416 is performed by the gNB which is the device that sends
the CHO commands. In contrast, the relevant step of claim 1 is performed by the same apparatus that receives the "conditional handover configuration information from a cellular base station." Thus, the Office Action unreasonably cites a base station side decision against a selection that clearly does not occur at the base
station in claim 1. .
Thus, for at least the above reasons, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach or suggest all the features and limitations of claim 1, and so it and its dependents are patentably distinct and non-obvious over the cited art, and are thus allowable. The other independent claims
include similar novel features and limitations, and they (as well as their dependents) are allowable for similar reasons. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s main contention appears to be that Chen discloses that the handover decision is made by a node (gNB; next generation NodeB) sending the CHO command, rather than the handover decision being made by the device receiving the CHO command, i.e. a cellular device, such as the UE 402 disclosed in Chen. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion.
Looking at paragraph [0105] of Chen, which was cited for the final limitation of the independent claims, Chen states:
[0105] After the UE receives CHO commands #1 and #2, in action 434, UE 402 may start evaluating the triggering conditions and leaving conditions (if present) while the corresponding CHO command is still valid. Upon a triggering condition of a CHO command being fulfilled and the life timer (if configured) still running, UE 402 may execute the CHO command for handover. In case that there are multiple CHO commands fulfilling the corresponding triggering conditions, UE 402 may execute the CHO command with the highest HO priority, as shown in action 436. For example, when both CHO commands #1 and #2 fulfill the corresponding triggering conditions and the HO priority of CHO command #1 is higher than that of CHO command #2, UE 402 executes CHO command #1 to connect to target cell #1 of target base station 406, as shown in action 438. 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.
Thus, it can be seen that, while CHO command #1 and CHO command #2 are send from source gNB 404, it is in fact the UE 402 that decides whether or not to act on these commands (i.e. perform a command) based on triggering conditions. That is, to reiterate, para. [0105] of Chen states that “UE 402 may start evaluating the triggering conditions …while the corresponding CHO command is still valid. Upon a triggering condition of a CHO command being fulfilled and the life timer (if configured) still running, UE 402 may execute the CHO command for handover (emphasis added by Examiner).”
Thus, Chen clearly discloses that the “select[ion of] a cell candidate to which to perform handover from the multiple cell candidates that meet the one or more conditions for performing handover based at least in part on one or more wireless device conditions” is, in fact, performed by a mobile cellular apparatus. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 pm.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 November 13, 2025