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 .
Status
This paper is responsive to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) received April 13, 2026, for the U.S. Patent Application filed December 11, 2023 as a divisional application from U.S. Patent Application 17/295,411 claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Application 62/772,104, filed November 28, 2018.
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Claim 12 has been added.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Support for the amendments was found in the specification in particular in Fig. 2, Fig. 10 and corresponding specification page 37, lines 15 et seq., and in the provisional application page 3, lines 23-27, and have been accepted.
Claim 12 has been added. Claim 12 reads “The method according to claim 1, wherein determining whether the selected cell is one of the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored by the wireless device comprises comparing the selected cell to the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored by the wireless device.”
The word “comparing” occurs once in the specification and is unrelated to the claim amendment. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Fig. 2 explicitly states in decision block 206 “Target cell X selected?” which makes comparing the target cell to the selected cell impossible in that they are the same cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is 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 claim 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 has been added and provides determining whether the selected cell is one of the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored by the wireless device comprises comparing the selected cell to the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored by the wireless device.
A search for support in the originally filed specification, claims and drawings has not yielded support for “comparing the selected cell to the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored by the wireless device” in that the step of “comparing” a selected cell to a target cell X is not supported. The originally-filed specification does not cite the word “comparing” in a way which suggests that the selected cell is compared to a target cell. The word “comparing” occurs once in the specification and is unrelated to the claim amendment. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Fig. 2 explicitly states in decision block 206 “Target cell X selected?” which makes comparing the target cell to the selected cell impossible in that they are the same cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskitalo et al. (US 20140120921 A1; hereinafter “Keskitalo”), in view of US Pat. Pub. US 20210314833 to Yutai Hao (hereinafter “Hao”).
Regarding claim 1, Keskitalo discloses a method performed by a wireless device when operating in a wireless network, for handling conditional handover from a source cell to a target cell ([0072] and Fig. 6), the method comprising:
performing cell selection upon detecting a communication failure, determining, by the wireless device, whether the selected cell is one of the at least one target cell X for which a handover configuration has been obtained and stored by the wireless device ([0073] and Fig. 6: At operation 115, the UE may detect one or more radio problems.. at operation 120. The UE may determine or detect that a connection failure (e.g., radio link failure) occurred in response to being unable to reestablish the network connection or resolve the deterioration in radio conditions/quality upon expiration of the predetermined time period, at operation 125; [0074] and Fig. 6: At operation 130, the UE may examine data in the message (e.g., RRCConnectionReconfiguration message) received from the eNB1 including the preparatory handover command and the UE may select a best candidate target cell for handover.));
responsive to determining that the selected cell is one of the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored, initiating handover to one of the at least one target cell X by applying the stored handover configuration of the selected cell; (Keskitalo teaches at para. [0074], operation 130, the UE may examine data in the message (e.g., RRCConnectionReconfiguration message) data (= stored handover configuration) received from the eNB1 including the preparatory handover command and may select a best candidate target cell for handover. In this regard, the UE may select data identifying the eNB2 from the message (e.g., RRCConnectionReconfiguration message) and may change or be handed over to the eNB2.).
Keskitalo does NOT disclose “responsive to determining that the selected cell is not one of the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored, initiating a transmission of an RRC re-establishment request message.”
In the analogous art of 3GPP NR conditional handovers, Hao teaches “responsive to determining that the selected cell is not one of the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored, initiating a transmission of an RRC re-establishment request message.” (Hao teaches in paras. [0048]-[0050] that the UE may select the target cell based on the priority levels of the plurality of candidate target cells which is included in a conditional handover command. Further, in para. [0074] teaches that an RRC reestablishment is triggered after a handover failure, an RLF or other failures, after the RRC reestablishment is successful: “another reestablishment may occur immediately due to an unsuitable target cell selected, thereby affecting communication of the UE.” Hao further teaches in para. [0069] that the UE selects the target cell for handover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Keskitalo with Hao to teach a conditional handover wherein an RRC re-establishment request message is initiated when determining that the selected cell is not one of the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained. Each of Keskitalo and Hao are in the field of wireless communications and address handover configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Keskitalo with Hao in order to assist a UE in selecting a target cell for handover when multiple target cells meet a handover condition as taught in Hao para. [0005].
Regarding claim 2, Keskitalo does NOT directly teach wherein the stored handover configuration is a conditional handover configuration.
In the analogous art of 3GPP NR conditional handovers, Hao teaches wherein the stored handover configuration is a conditional handover configuration (Hao teaches in Fig. 1 that the stored handover configuration is a conditional handover configuration:
PNG
media_image1.png
516
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Keskitalo with Hao to teach a conditional handover wherein an RRC re-establishment request message is initiated when determining that the selected cell is not one of the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained. Each of Keskitalo and Hao are in the field of wireless communications and address handover configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Keskitalo with Hao in order to assist a UE in selecting a target cell for handover when multiple target cells meet a handover condition as taught in Hao para. [0005].
Regarding claim 3, Keskitalo in view of Hao disclose the limitations of claim 1 as set forth, and Keskitalo further discloses wherein said communication failure comprises any of: handover failure, radio link failure, and failure to comply with a configuration for accessing the wireless network ([0073] and Fig. 6: At operation 115, the UE may detect one or more radio problems. The radio problems may be associated with a detection of a network connection failure(s) (e.g., a lost connection with a source cell (e.g., eNB1)) and/or deterioration in radio conditions/quality, etc.)
Regarding claim 4, Keskitalo in view of Hao disclose the limitations of claim 1 as set forth, and Keskitalo further discloses wherein said communication failure is declared when a timer expires, which timer has been started when the communication failure was first detected (Keskitalo para. [0073] and Fig. 6: The UE may attempt to reestablish the connection with the network or resolve the deterioration in radio conditions/quality within a predetermined time period (also referred to herein as T311), at operation 120. The UE may determine or detect that a connection failure (e.g., radio link failure) occurred in response to being unable to reestablish the network connection or resolve the deterioration in radio conditions/quality upon expiration of the predetermined time period, at operation 125).
Claims 6-9 are rejected on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claims 1-4, respectively. Claims 6-9 recite similar features as in claims 1-4, respectively, from the perspective of a wireless device. Keskitalo further discloses an apparatus for a wireless device to perform similar functions ([0053] and Fig. 3).
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 11 recites similar features as in claim 1, from the perspective of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium containing computer program instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out the method according to claim 1. Keskitalo further discloses an apparatus for a wireless device comprising a non-transitory storage medium containing computer program instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out similar functions ([0054] and Fig. 3: processor 70 and memory 76).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskitalo in view of Hao further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20210314828 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”), and further in view of 3GPP TS 36.331 V15.3.0 (2018-09) (hereinafter “NPL1”).
Regarding claim 5, Keskitalo in view of Hao disclose the limitations of claim 1 as set forth, and Keskitalo further discloses wherein the stored handover configuration is an RRC configuration ([0074] At operation 130, the UE may examine data in the message (e.g., RRCConnectionReconfiguration message) received from the eNB1 including the preparatory handover command and may select a best candidate target cell for handover.).
But Keskitalo in view of Hao do NOT disclose wherein the stored handover configuration is an RRC configuration comprising an RRCReconfiguration with reconfigurationWithSync or an RRCConnectionReconfiguration with mobilityControlInfo.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein the stored handover configuration is an RRC configuration comprising an RRCReconfiguration with reconfigurationWithSync (Kim para. [0110] teaches that the network may initiate the RRC reconfiguration procedure to a UE in RRC_CONNECTED. Further, para. [0113] teaches that the reconfigurationWithSync is included in secondaryCellGroup only when at least one DRB is setup in SCG; [0116] 1> start timer T304 for the corresponding SpCell with the timer value set to t304, as included in the reconfigurationWithSync.)
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, NPL1 discloses wherein the stored handover configuration is an RRC configuration comprising an RRCConnectionReconfiguration with mobilityControlInfo (P. 117, Sec. 5.3.5.8: 1> if the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message includes the mobilityControlInfo: 2> release/ clear all current common radio configurations; 2> use the default values specified in 9.2.5 for timer T310, T311 and constant N310, N311.)
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 method of Keskitalo and Hao as applied to claim 1, based on the above teaching from Kim and NPL1, to obtain the limitations of claim 5, because the modification uses prior art elements according to their established functions to produce a predictable result that is equivalent to the claimed limitations. This method of improving was well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art, who would have been motivated to perform this modification in order to continue communication for the mobility client in case of a communication failure with the current cell.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claim 5, respectively. Claim 10 recite similar features as in claim 5 from the perspective of a wireless device. Keskitalo further discloses an apparatus for a wireless device to perform similar functions ([0053] and Fig. 3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskitalo in view of Hao further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20210051537 A1 to Yuanyuan Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”) (claiming priority to CN PCT/CN2018/113124 filed 2018-10-31)
Regarding claim 12, Keskitalo in view of Hao disclose the limitations of claim 1 as set forth, Further, Keskatalo in view of Zhang teaches wherein determining whether the selected cell is one of the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored by the wireless device comprises comparing the selected cell to the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored by the wireless device. (Keskitalo teaches in Fig. 7 and para. [0076] that a UE initiates a selection of one of the candidate target cells for handover. As shown in Fig. 7, block 710 teaches “enable handover of the user terminal to the “selected candidate target cell” which teaches requires in that the selected cell is chosen from the stored configurations for handover.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses comparing the selected cell to the at least one target cell X for which the handover configuration has been obtained and stored by the wireless device. (Zhang teaches in para. [0030] that for conditional HO preparation multiple candidate gNBs and a conditional HO command is sent to the UE. Zhang, Fig. 2, element 262 teaches “verify conditions” wherein the candidate cell is a handover target cell when conditions are verified (=compared). Likewise, Fig. 8 and para. [0037] teaches a verification step 801 wherein “ the UE receives a conditional handover (HO) command from a source gNB in a wireless network, wherein the conditional HO command contains a set of candidate cells, and wherein each candidate cell is a handover target cell when one or more corresponding handover conditions are verified. Para. [0026] teaches “upon verifying the triggering event for a candidate cell, at step 272, UE 201 performs an HO procedure. The candidate cell that triggering event was detected becomes the target cell.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Zhang and Keskitalo to teach comparing the selected cell with the target cell. Each of Zhang and Keskitalo are in the field of wireless communications and address handovers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Zhang with Keskitalo in order to enhance mobility reliability and reduce handover failure rate and radio link failure rate as taught in Zhang para. [0006].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-270-7191. 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.
/MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights