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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1,3,6-8,10-11,13,15-16 and 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
No prior art rejection is made herein with respect to the newly added limitation in light of the following rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant amended the claim to recite:
“wherein the conditional handover with the candidate SCG is not executed until both of the first execution condition and the second execution condition are met.” The newly added limitation requires that satisfaction of both the first execution condition associated with the candidate PCell and the second execution condition associated with the candidate PSCell be prerequisites to execution of the conditional handover. That is, according to the amended limitation, the conditional handover is not executed when only the first execution condition is met and the second execution condition is not met.
Applicant identifies FIG. 3B and paragraphs [0081]-[0082] as support for the newly added limitation. FIG. 3B and paragraphs [0081]-[0082] represent the closest disclosure to the newly added limitation. Paragraph [0081] discloses that the UE determines that the second execution condition of PSCell_2 is met at step S310a while no first execution condition of PCell_1 or PCell_2 is met. Paragraph [0082] subsequently discloses that the UE determines that the first execution condition of PCell_2 is met and, thereafter, performs CHO execution at step S330a. Thus, in the particular sequence illustrated in FIG. 3B, the second execution condition happens to be met before the first execution condition, such that both conditions have been met at the time CHO execution occurs.
However, FIG. 3B and paragraphs [0081]-[0082] do not disclose that satisfaction of the second execution condition is required before CHO execution may occur. Rather, FIG. 3B shows that CHO is not performed at step S310a because the first execution condition of a candidate PCell has not yet been met. Once the first execution condition of PCell_2 is met, CHO execution is performed at step S330a. The disclosed sequence therefore does not establish that the second execution condition constitutes an additional prerequisite or gate to CHO execution.
This understanding is consistent with the remainder of the originally filed disclosure. Paragraph [0069] separately provides that, if the UE determines that the first execution condition of PCell_1 is met, the UE may perform the conditional handover to PCell_1, whereas, additionally or alternatively, if the second execution condition of PSCell_1 is met, the UE may change a serving PSCell to PSCell_1 or add PSCell_1 as the serving PSCell.
More particularly, paragraph [0075] expressly describes a circumstance in which the first execution condition of PCell_1 is met while no second execution condition of PSCell_1 and/or PSCell_2 is met. Under that circumstance, the disclosure provides that the UE can nevertheless synchronize to PCell_1 and transmit an RRC reconfiguration complete message to T-MN1.
FIG. 3A and paragraphs [0077]-[0078] further illustrate that the first execution condition of PCell_2 is met at step S310, after which the UE performs CHO execution at step S320. The second execution condition of PSCell_2 is then determined to be met at step S330, after the CHO has already been executed, and the UE subsequently performs PSCell addition execution at step S340. Thus, the originally filed disclosure expressly contemplates CHO execution before the second execution condition of the candidate PSCell is met.
The distinction is further confirmed by paragraphs [0148]-[0149]. Paragraph [0148] provides that, in response to determining that the first execution condition of PCell_2 is met, the UE can directly perform CHO execution. Paragraph [0149] similarly provides that, when the first execution condition of PCell_1 is met, the UE would directly perform the corresponding CHO execution and expressly states that the UE “would not delay the corresponding CHO execution once the first execution of any of the candidate PCells is met.”
Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure supports the first execution condition of the candidate PCell as a condition for CHO execution and separately associates the second execution condition of the candidate PSCell with changing or adding the candidate PSCell. Although FIG. 3B shows one factual sequence in which the second execution condition happens to have already been met when the first execution condition is subsequently met and CHO is executed, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the newly claimed requirement that CHO must be withheld unless and until both execution conditions are satisfied.
Therefore, the originally filed disclosure does not provide adequate written description support for the limitation “wherein the conditional handover with the candidate SCG is not executed until both of the first execution condition and the second execution condition are met.”
Claims 11, 13, and 28 include corresponding limitations requiring that the conditional handover not be executed until both the first execution condition and the second execution condition are met and are rejected for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights