CTNF 18/513,344 CTNF 85616 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 1. Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/20/2026 regarding claims 1-29 in the remarks are considered but moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. Response to Amendments Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 2. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 3. Claim (s) 1, 13, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0224525) in view of Torsner (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0253334) . As per clam 1: Li teaches an apparatus for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE) (see Figure 6, terminal 600 ) , comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions (see Figure 21, paragraph [0297], memory 2101 for storing data and used by the processor 2100 for performing operations) ; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (see paragraph [0298], processor 2100 reads information in the memory 2101 and completes steps of a signal processing procedure in combination with hardware of the processor 2100 ) and cause the apparatus to: receive, from a first network entity, a message indicating a handover of the UE from a source cell to a target cell (see paragraph [0282], step 1902, the network device sends handover instructions to the terminal device . Said handover instructions are used to instruct the terminal device to hand over from a source cell to a target cell , please see paragraph [0283]) . Li does not teach perform the handover conditional upon completion of delivery of a first set of packets from the first network entity to the UE . Torsner teaches perform the handover conditional upon completion of delivery of a first set of packets from the first network entity to the UE (see paragraph [0032], upon reception of indication, referred to as flag, indicating the last packet to be transmitted from first/old radio base station and correct reception of last packet, the UE sends a connection request to the second radio base station as part of the handover process. Note: Examiner is reading packets #3, #4 as well as last packet #5, please refer to figure 3, as said first set of packets especially since the first/old radio base station (i.e., Node B1 as depicted in figure 3) completes transmission of those packets before DL handover ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the sending of flag indicating the last packet to be transmitted from the first/old base station (as disclosed in Torsner) into Li as a way of achieving both lossless and continuous transmission at a downlink handover (please see paragraph [0013] of Torsner). Therefore, implementing such control information (i.e., indicating the flag) ensures that all packets are received at the UE prior to handover (please see paragraph [0032] of Torsner). As per claim 13: Li teaches an apparatus for wireless communications by a first network entity (see Figures 1 and 2, network device ) , comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions (see Figure 21, paragraph [0297], memory 2101 for storing data and used by the processor 2100 for performing operations) ; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (see paragraph [0298], processor 2100 reads information in the memory 2101 and completes steps of a signal processing procedure in combination with hardware of the processor 2100 ) and cause the apparatus to: obtain a first set of packets to be delivered to a user equipment (UE) (see paragraph [0024], the network device receives a plurality of data packets corresponding a plurality of video frames from a server . The network device sends each of the video frames to a terminal device ) . Li does not clearly teach and perform at least one action to delay handover of the UE from a serving cell to a target cell until completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE . Torsner teaches and perform at least one action to delay handover of the UE from a serving cell to a target cell until completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (see paragraph [0036], handover is performed if the execution time elapses before the indicated last packet is received at the UE. Note: Examiner is reading said execution time as said delay especially since the time elapsed prior to the reception of the last packet. Also, the last packet is part of a set of packets. Please see Figure 3, for example, where the node B1 transmits packets #3, #4 and last packet #5 prior to said DL handover ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the sending of flag indicating the last packet to be transmitted from the first/old base station (as disclosed in Torsner) into Li as a way of achieving both lossless and continuous transmission at a downlink handover (please see paragraph [0013] of Torsner). Therefore, implementing such control information (i.e., indicating the flag) ensures that all packets are received at the UE prior to handover (please see paragraph [0032] of Torsner). As per claim 28: Li teaches a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE) (see paragraphs [0008]-[0010], teaches a video transmission method in which a network device transmits one or more data packets of a plurality of video frames to a terminal device ) , comprising: receiving, from a first network entity, a message indicating a handover of the UE from a source cell to a target cell (see paragraph [0282], step 1902, the network device sends handover instructions to the terminal device . Said handover instructions are used to instruct the terminal device to hand over from a source cell to a target cell , please see paragraph [0283]) . Li does not clearly disclose and performing the handover conditional upon completion of delivery of a first set of packets from the first network entity to the UE . Torsner teaches and performing the handover conditional upon completion of delivery of a first set of packets from the first network entity to the UE (see paragraph [0032], upon reception of indication, referred to as flag, indicating the last packet to be transmitted from first/old radio base station and correct reception of last packet, the UE sends a connection request to the second radio base station as part of the handover process. Note: Examiner is reading packets #3, #4 as well as last packet #5, please refer to figure 3, as said first set of packets especially since the first/old radio base station (i.e., Node B1 as depicted in figure 3) completes transmission of those packets before DL handover ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the sending of flag indicating the last packet to be transmitted from the first/old base station (as disclosed in Torsner) into Li as a way of achieving both lossless and continuous transmission at a downlink handover (please see paragraph [0013] of Torsner). Therefore, implementing such control information (i.e., indicating the flag) ensures that all packets are received at the UE prior to handover (please see paragraph [0032] of Torsner). As per claim 29: Li teaches a method for wireless communications by a first network entity (see paragraphs [0008]-[0010], teaches a video transmission method in which a network device transmits one or more data packets of a plurality of video frames to a terminal device ) , comprising: obtaining a first set of packets to be delivered to a user equipment (UE) (see paragraph [0024], the network device receives a plurality of data packets corresponding a plurality of video frames from a server . The network device sends each of the video frames to a terminal device ) . Li does not teach and performing at least one action to delay handover of the UE from a serving cell to a target cell until completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE . Torsner teaches and performing at least one action to delay handover of the UE from a serving cell to a target cell until completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (see paragraph [0036], handover is performed if the execution time elapses before the indicated last packet is received at the UE. Note: Examiner is reading said execution time as said delay especially since the time elapsed prior to the reception of the last packet. Also, the last packet is part of a set of packets. Please see Figure 3, for example, where the node B1 transmits packets #3, #4 and last packet #5 prior to said DL handover ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the sending of flag indicating the last packet to be transmitted from the first/old base station (as disclosed in Torsner) into Li as a way of achieving both lossless and continuous transmission at a downlink handover (please see paragraph [0013] of Torsner). Therefore, implementing such control information (i.e., indicating the flag) ensures that all packets are received at the UE prior to handover (please see paragraph [0032] of Torsner) . 07-21-aia AIA 4. Claim (s) 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15-19, 21, 22, 24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0172076) . As per claim 3: Li in view of Torsner teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of: wherein the message comprises a conditional handover message that indicates the UE can perform the handover conditional upon completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE . Pan teaches wherein the message comprises a conditional handover message that indicates the UE can perform the handover conditional upon completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (see paragraph [0158], the source access network device may send the handover command to the terminal device at any moment of the first period to indicate to the terminal device to perform handover at a moment which the source access network device completes sending of the first data . Note: Paragraph [0151] disclose said first data may include one or more data packets and thus a set of packets ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). As per claim 5: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 3 . Li and Torsner do not clearly teach wherein the conditional handover message identifies at least one of: the first set of packets; or a burst of sets of packets that includes the first set of packets . Pan teaches wherein the conditional handover message identifies (see paragraph [0158], the source access network device sends handover command indicating to perform handover provided it has completed sending the first data ) at least one of: the first set of packets (Paragraph [0151] disclose said first data may include one or more data packets and thus a set of packets ) ; or a burst of sets of packets that includes the first set of packets (paragraph [0151] disclose said first data may be understood as a frame or a burst service ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). As per claim 6: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 3 . Li and Torsner do not teach wherein the handover is also conditional on at least one of: the UE receiving signaling from the first network entity indicating an end of traffic; or the UE entering at least one of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) skipping mode or a sleep mode . Pan teaches wherein the handover is also conditional on at least one of: the UE receiving signaling from the first network entity indicating an end of traffic (see paragraph [0160], the source access network device may send the handover command to the terminal device when sending the last data packet to the terminal device . In other words, the handover command and the last data packet are sent together to the UE , please see paragraph [0253]) ; or the UE entering at least one of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) skipping mode or a sleep mode ( Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). As per claim 8: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 3 . Li does not teach wherein the message also indicates the UE can perform the conditional handover prior to completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE, based upon at least one of: expiration of a timer; or a channel condition threshold . Pan teaches wherein the message also indicates the UE can perform the conditional handover prior to completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (see paragraph [0174], the source access network device determines based on the measurement report of the terminal device that a signal of the target network device is better , that “the first data is data of the periodic service” may be used as an additional trigger condition for the source access network device to determine the handover moment ) , based upon at least one of: expiration of a timer ( Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art ) ; or a channel condition threshold (as explained earlier in paragraph [0174], the source access network device determines based on the measurement report of the terminal device that a signal of the target network device is better , that “the first data is data of the periodic service” may be used as an additional trigger condition for the source access network device to determine the handover moment ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). As per claim 10: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 . Li and Torsner do not teach wherein: the message indicates that timing of the handover is dependent on delivery of the first set of packets to the UE . Pan teaches wherein: the message indicates that timing of the handover is dependent on delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (paragraph [0158], explicitly states: “the terminal device is indicated to perform a handover at a moment at which the source access network device completes sending of the first data ” . Where said first data may include one or more data packets and thus a set of packets , please see paragraph [0151]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). As per claim 15: Li in view of Torsner teaches the apparatus of claim 13 with the exception of: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to detect a condition to trigger handover of UE from a serving cell to a target cell . Pan teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to detect a condition to trigger handover of UE from a serving cell to a target cell (paragraph [0174], the source access network device determines based on the measurement report of the terminal device that a signal of the target network device is better , that “the first data is data of the periodic service” may be used as an additional trigger condition for the source access network device to determine the handover moment ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). As per claim 16: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 15 . Li and Torsner do not teach wherein the at least one action comprises delaying transmission of a handover message, after detecting the condition, until after completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE . Pan teaches wherein the at least one action comprises delaying transmission of a handover message, after detecting the condition, until after completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (see paragraph [0254], the S-RAN may send the handover command to the UE after the last data of packet #1 is sent to the UE. In other words, the last data packet is first sent to the UE, and then the handover command is sent). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). As per claim 17: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 13 . Li does not teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: obtain a quality of service (QoS) parameter indicating timing of transmission of the message should be dependent on delivery of the first set of packets to the UE . Pan teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: obtain a quality of service (QoS) parameter indicating timing of transmission of the message should be dependent on delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (see paragraph [0249], the S-RAN decides to make handover decision based on the report measurement results. Paragraph [0254] discloses the S-RAN may send the handover command after sending the last data packet of data #1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). As per claim 18: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 13 . Li and Torsner do not teach wherein the at least one action comprises transmitting a message for a conditional handover, wherein the message indicates the UE can perform the handover conditional upon completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE . Pan teaches wherein the at least one action comprises transmitting a message for a conditional handover, wherein the message indicates the UE can perform the handover conditional upon completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (paragraph [0158], explicitly states: “the terminal device is indicated to perform a handover at a moment at which the source access network device completes sending of the first data ” . Where said first data may include one or more data packets and thus a set of packets , please see paragraph [0151]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). As per claim 19: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 18 . Li and Torsner do not teach wherein the conditional handover message is transmitted prior to detecting a condition to trigger handover of UE from a serving cell to a target cell . Pan teaches wherein the conditional handover message is transmitted prior to detecting a condition to trigger handover of UE from a serving cell to a target cell (see paragraph [0249], the S-RAN decides to perform handover to the T-RAN after receiving measurement report from the UE). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan). Claim 21 is rejected in the same scope as claim 5. Claim 22 is rejected in the same scope as claim 6. Claim 24 is rejected in the same scope as claim 8. As per claim 27: Li in view of Torsner teaches the apparatus of claim 13 with the exception of: wherein: the at least one action comprises transmitting a handover message that indicates handover timing dependent on delivery of the first set of packets to the UE; and the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to participate in handover preparation with a second network entity of the target cell after transmitting the handover message . Pan teaches wherein: the at least one action comprises transmitting a handover message that indicates handover timing dependent on delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (paragraph [0158], explicitly states: “the terminal device is indicated to perform a handover at a moment at which the source access network device completes sending of the first data ” . Where said first data may include one or more data packets and thus a set of packets , please see paragraph [0151]) ; and the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to participate in handover preparation with a second network entity of the target cell after transmitting the handover message (see paragraph [0151], the source access network device may send, based on the first identifier, the first handover command to the terminal at any moment of the first time period). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of said handover command (as disclosed in Pan) into Li and Torsner as a way of avoiding interruption of sending the first data by the source access network device due to the handover and thereby improving transmission reliability of the periodic service (please see paragraph [0159] of Pan). Therefore, implementing such handover procedure helps in reducing latency affecting user experience (please see paragraph [0005] of Pan) . 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim (s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Kang (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0388962) . As per claim 2: Li in view of Torsner teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of: wherein the first set of packets comprises a set of internet protocol (IP) packets representing a unit of information at an application layer . Kang teaches wherein the first set of packets comprises a set of internet protocol (IP) packets representing a unit of information at an application layer (see Figure 1, paragraph [0053], network node 14 packetizes the application layer data into application layer packets. The network node 14 may further segment each application layer packet 16 into multiple IP packets). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the generation and segmentation of application layer packets (as disclosed in Kang) into Li and Torsner as a way of achieving certain ordering of packets carrying the application data from that application layer packet (please see paragraph [0053] of Kang). Claim 14 is rejected in the same scope as claim 2 . 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim s 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan and Fischer (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0196252) . As per claim 7: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 3 with the exception of: wherein the handover is also conditional on completion of at least one uplink transmission from the UE to the first network entity . Fischer teaches wherein the handover is also conditional on completion of at least one uplink transmission from the UE to the first network entity (see paragraph [0057], disclose before the handover procedure starts, a sequence of uplink data is transmitted along the wireless communication link from the UE to the source eNodeB). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of uplink data to the source base station prior to handover (as disclosed in Fischer) into Li, Torsner and Pan as a way of enabling the UE to determine the about of data packets that need to be retransmitted to the target base station (please see paragraphs [0061]-[0062] of Fischer). Claim 23 is rejected in the same scope as claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim s 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan and Wang (US Patent No. 9,113,374) . As per claim 4: Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Pan teaches the apparatus of claim 3 with the exception of: wherein the handover is also conditional on random access channel (RACH) occasion (RO) timing of the target cell . Wang teaches wherein the handover is also conditional on random access channel (RACH) occasion (RO) timing of the target cell (Col 4, lines 10-11, the source eNode-B sends a handover command to the WTRU (step 212). The handover command includes information such as timing adjustment when handing over from the source eNode-B to the target eNode-B (i.e., whether the WTRU should perform timing adjustment autonomously or using a RACH procedure , if a RACH is to be used, whether random or dedicated access signature will be used), please see Col 4, lines 12-22). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the handover command indicating timing adjust for random access procedure (as disclosed in Wang) into Li, Torsner and Pan as a way of enabling the target eNode-B to provide a priority to the handover WTRU and also avoid random access process which causes a long interruption time during handover (please see Col 5, lines 40-50 of Wang). Claim 20 is rejected in the same scope as claim 4 . 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Wang . As per claim 11: Li in view of Torsner teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of: wherein performing the handover comprises delaying the handover based on at least one of: channel conditions; incomplete delivery of the first set of packets to the UE; or random access channel (RACH) occasion (RO) timing of the target cell . Wang teaches wherein performing the handover comprises delaying the handover based on at least one of: channel conditions ( Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record ) ; incomplete delivery of the first set of packets to the UE ( Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record ) ; or random access channel (RACH) occasion (RO) timing of the target cell (Col 4, lines 10-11, the source eNode-B sends a handover command to the WTRU (step 212). The handover command includes information such as timing adjustment when handing over from the source eNode-B to the target eNode-B (i.e., whether the WTRU should perform timing adjustment autonomously or using a RACH procedure , if a RACH is to be used, whether random or dedicated access signature will be used), please see Col 4, lines 12-22). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the handover command indicating timing adjust for random access procedure (as disclosed in Wang) into Li and Torsner as a way of enabling the target eNode-B to provide a priority to the handover WTRU and also avoid random access process which causes a long interruption time during handover (please see Col 5, lines 40-50 of Wang) . 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim s 9 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Spapis (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0358698) . As per claim 9: Li in view of Torsner teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of: wherein the message is received via at least one of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) that indicates when the handover should be triggered . Spapis teaches wherein the message is received via at least one of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) that indicates when the handover should be triggered (see paragraph [0128], once the source DU decides that the UE should be handed over to another DU (i.e., target DU), i.e., the source DU makes a cell switch decision, it triggers the cell/path switch using a MAC CE in step 13). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the triggering of cell/path selection using MAC CE (as disclosed in Spapis) into Li and Torsner as a way of enabling the UE to apply RRC configuration for the target cell and perform handover procedure (please see paragraph [0129] of Spapis). Claim 26 is rejected in the same scope as claim 9 . 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Tao (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0377828) . As per claim 12: Li in view of Torsner teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of: wherein performing the handover comprises performing the handover: after completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE, in order to receive a second set of packets in the source cell . Tao teaches wherein performing the handover comprises performing the handover: after completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE, in order to receive a second set of packets in the source cell (see paragraph [0221], discloses the UE continuing to communicate with the serving gNB, even after participating in the (conditional) handover and even after starting random access procedure with the target cell. Thus, it is evident that continued transmission of packets on the UL or DL is possible). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the continued transmission of UL/DL communication between UE and serving gNB even after handover (as disclosed in Tao) into Li and Torsner as a way of reducing service interruption caused by the UE stopping the UL/DL communication until the UE is connected to the target gNB or, it handover fails, re-connects to its serving gNB again (please see paragraph [0220] of Tao) . 07-21-aia AIA 11. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Torsner and further in view of Yu (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0256392) . As per claim 25: Li in view of Torsner teaches the apparatus of claim 13 with the exception of: wherein: the first set of packets has a delay budget; and the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer- executable instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit an indication of a remainder of the delay budget to a second network entity of the target cell, if the handover occurs prior to completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE . Yu teaches wherein: the first set of packets has a delay budget (see paragraph [0053], a PDB is a packet delay budget from a UE to the RAN device) ; and the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer- executable instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit an indication of a remainder of the delay budget to a second network entity of the target cell, if the handover occurs prior to completion of delivery of the first set of packets to the UE (see paragraph [0057], after the SMF selects a UPF network element, the SMF network element may determine the UPF network element and the RAN device that correspond to a QoS flow after a UE handover, so that the SMF network element may deliver a PDB corresponding to the QoS flow). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of packet delay budget after UE handover (as disclosed in Yu) into Li and Torsner as a way of initiating a session modification procedure (please see paragraph [0068] of Yu). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE AKWASI MENSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm. 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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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. PRINCE AKWASI. MENSAH Examiner Art Unit 2474 /PRINCE A MENSAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2474 /Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 2 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 3 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 4 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 5 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 6 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 7 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 8 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 9 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 10 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 11 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 12 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 13 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 14 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 15 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 16 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 17 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 18 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 19 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 20 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 21 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 22 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 23 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 24 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/513,344 Page 25 Art Unit: 2474
Prosecution Insights