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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 14, and 20 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 14, and 20-33 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 claim(s) 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. That is, claims 1 and 20 recite “conditional reconfiguration information comprising, for at least one candidate cell, a location-based conditional event, and a measurement-based configuration event,” and “based on the selected cell being one of the at least one candidate cell, apply the candidate configuration corresponding to the selected cell without evaluating whether the location-based conditional event corresponding to the selected cell is fulfilled” which were 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. The specification discloses “the first criterion comprises at least one of time information or location information”, “the second criterion does not comprise time information and location information”, and “applying a candidate configuration corresponding to the cell”. However, the specification does not disclose “conditional reconfiguration information comprising a location-based conditional event, and a measurement-based configuration event,” and “based on the selected cell being one of the at least one candidate cell, apply the candidate configuration corresponding to the selected cell without evaluating whether the location-based conditional event corresponding to the selected cell is fulfilled.” Moreover, there is nothing in the disclosure that supports the limitations. Applicant is welcomed to point out where in the specification the Examiner can find support for this limitation if Applicant believes otherwise. Therefore, claims 1 and 20 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.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 14, and 21-33 fail to correct the issue and thus, are rejected based on their dependency to claims 1 and 20 respectively.
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, 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 1, 2, 7, 14, 20-26, 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (hereinafter referred to as Lim, US 2024/0121689 A1) in view of Wu et al. (hereinafter referring to as Wu, US 2024/0187955 A1).
Referring to claim 1, Lim discloses a user equipment UE) (fig.1, electronic device 101) comprising:
a transceiver (fig.1, communication module 190) and
a processor (fig.1, processor 120), wherein the transceiver and the processor are configured to:
receive radio resource control (RRC) signaling comprising conditional reconfiguration information comprising, for at least one candidate cell, a candidate configuration, and a measurement-based configuration event ([0097], [0118]) (Note: the electronic device receives, from a serving cell, at least one RRC reconfiguration message comprising conditional reconfiguration information associated with at least one candidate cell; wherein the conditional reconfiguration includes a conditional execution condition (e.g., A3 event and/or A5 event) (measurement-based configuration event)),
detect a radio link failure (RLF) ([0119]) (Note: the electronic device identifies a radio link failure (RLF)),
initiate an RRC connection re-establishment procedure based on detection of the RLF, select cell during the RRC connection re-establishment procedure ([0120], fig.12 and [0163]-[0165]) (Notes: the electronic device initiates an RRC connection re-establishment procedure based on detection of the RLF, and selects a target cell), and
based on the selected cell being one of the at least one candidate cell, apply the candidate configuration corresponding to the selected cell without evaluating whether the location-based conditional event corresponding to the selected cell is fulfilled ([0120], fig.12 and [0163]-[0165]) (Notes: the electronic device, based on the selected target cell, applies a handover procedure (candidate configuration) corresponding to the selected cell).
Lim fails to disclose a radio resource control (RRC) signaling comprising a location-based conditional event.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user equipment (UE), Wu discloses a radio resource control (RRC) signaling comprising a location-based conditional event ([0036] and [0050]) (Note: the reference discloses a radio resource control (RRC) signaling containing an execution condition for CHO candidate target cell, wherein the execution condition at least includes a location-based condition associated with a location of a UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to replace the radio resource control (RRC) signaling of Lim with a radio resource control (RRC) signaling comprising a location-based conditional event as taught by Wu. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce handover latency and lower the risk of Radio Link Failure (RLF).
Referring to claim 2, Lim in view of Wu discloses the UE according to claim 1.
Wu discloses wherein the location-based conditional event is based on a distance between the UE and a reference point configured by a network ([0051]) (Note: the location-based condition is a distance between the UE and the CHO candidate target cell (configured by a network)).
The same motivation provided for claim 1 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 7, Lim in view of Wu discloses the UE according to claim 1.
Lim discloses wherein the RRC signaling comprises a ConditionalReconfiguration information element (IE), and wherein the ConditionalReconfiguration IE comprises the conditional reconfiguration information ([0003]) (Note: In Release 16 of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), the network may provide configuration parameters for a target SpCell to an IE of ConditionalReconfiguration).
Referring to claim 14, Lim in view of Wu discloses the UE according to claim 1.
Lim discloses wherein the measurement-based conditional event comprises an entry condition for an A3 event, an A4 event, or an A5 event ([0097]) (Note: the execution condition (e.g., A3 event and/or A5 event) may be identified by the measurement identification information (MeasID) included in the conditional execution condition).
Referring to claim 20, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 1 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 21, Lim in view of Wu discloses the UE of claim 14.
Lim discloses wherein:
the A3 event comprises a conditional reconfiguration candidate cell becoming an offset better than a PCell or a PSCeII ([0088] and [0098]) (Note: the A3 event may refer, for example, to the neighbor cell becoming better than the PCell/PSCell (or SpCell of NR) by an offset), and
the A5 event comprises the PCell or the PSCeII becoming worse than a first absolute threshold and the conditional reconfiguration candidate cell becoming better than a second absolute threshold ([0090] and [0101]) (Note: the A5 event may refer, for example, to the PCell/PSCell (or SpCell of NR) becoming worse than the first threshold, and the neighbor cell (or neighbor/SCell of NR) becoming better than the second threshold).
Wu discloses the A4 event comprises the conditional reconfiguration candidate cell becoming better than an absolute threshold ([0130]) (Note: CondEvent A4: a measurement result of a neighbour cell (e.g., the CHO candidate target cell) becomes better than a measurement threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the measurement-based conditional event of Lim with a A4 event comprising the conditional reconfiguration candidate cell becoming better than an absolute threshold as taught by Wu. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for load balancing and coverage independence.
Referring to claim 22, Lim in view of Wu discloses the UE of claim 1.
Wu discloses wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to, before the RLF is detected: determine that both the location-based conditional event and the measurement-based conditional event are fulfilled for one of the at least one candidate cell, and apply the candidate configuration corresponding to the one of the at least one candidate cell ([0060] and [0133]-[0134]) (Note: the UE determines that both the location-based conditional event and the measurement-based conditional event are fulfilled for one of the at least one candidate cell, and applies the CHO procedure (before the RLF)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the UE of Lim in view of Wu with a processor configured to determine that both the location-based conditional event and the measurement-based conditional event are fulfilled for one of the at least one candidate cell, and apply the candidate configuration corresponding to the one of the at least one candidate cell as taught by Wu. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce handover interruptions by lowering RLF rates.
Referring to claim 23, Lim in view of Wu discloses the UE of claim 1.
Lim discloses wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to transmit an RRCReconfigurationComplete message after applying the candidate configuration corresponding to the selected cell ([0171]) (Note: In case that the RACH procedure is successful, the electronic device 101 may transmit an RRC reconfiguration complete message to the corresponding cell).
Referring to claim 24, Lim in view of Wu discloses the UE of claim 1.
Lim discloses wherein the candidate configuration comprises condRRCReconfig ([0097] and [0104]) (Note: additional information of the conditional reconfiguration may include conditional RRC reconfiguration information (condRRCReconfig)).
Referring to claim 25, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 22 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 26, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 7 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 28, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 2 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 29, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 14 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 30, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 21 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 31, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 23 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 32, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 24 is applicable herein.
Claims 4 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Wu, and further in view of Jia et al. (hereinafter referring to as Jia, US 2024/0015629 A1).
Referring to claim 4, Lim in view of Wu discloses the UE according to claim 1, except wherein the candidate configuration comprises a ReconfigurationWithSync field.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user equipment (UE), Jia discloses a concept wherein the candidate configuration comprises a ReconfigurationWithSync field ([0103]) (Note: the conditional reconfiguration candidate cell includes a conditional handover candidate cell, that is, a cell whose reconfigurationWithSync is included in masterCellGroup of a variable VarConditionalReconfig, and/or, a conditional PSCell change cell, that is, a cell whose reconfigurationWithSync is included in secondaryCellGroup of a variable VarConditionalReconfig).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the candidate configuration of Lim in view of Wu with a candidate configuration comprising a ReconfigurationWithSync field as taught by Jia. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to minimize handover interruption.
Referring to claim 33, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 4 is applicable herein.
Claims 8 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Wu, and further in view of Wallentin et al. (hereinafter referring to as Wallentin, US 2023/0217329 A1).
Referring to claim 8, Lim in view of Wu discloses the UE according to claim 7, except wherein the ConditionalReconfiguration IE further comprises a CondReconfigToAddModList field that includes a plurality of entries, each of the plurality of entries corresponding to a respective candidate cell and comprising information associated with a candidate configuration and a conditional execution condition for the corresponding candidate cell.
However, in the same field of endeavor of user equipment (UE), Wallentin discloses wherein the ConditionalReconfiguration IE further comprises a CondReconfigToAddModList field that includes a plurality of entries, each of the plurality of entries corresponding to a respective candidate cell and comprising information associated with a candidate configuration and a conditional execution condition for the corresponding candidate cell ([0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the ConditionalReconfiguration IE of Lim in view of Wu with a CondReconfigToAddModList field that includes a plurality of entries, each of the plurality of entries corresponding to a respective candidate cell and comprising information associated with a candidate configuration and a conditional execution condition for the corresponding candidate cell as taught by Wallentin. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce radio link failures and handover interruptions.
Referring to claim 27, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 8 is applicable herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSTAPHA DIABY whose telephone number is (571)270-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM.
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, ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/MOUSTAPHA DIABY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights