Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's Patent Application filed on December 15, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. This Action is made Non-Final.
America Invents Act (AIA ) Information
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted within this application (has/have) been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 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.
5. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu; Lianhai et al. (US 20240179604 A1), hereafter “Wu.”
Consider claim 1. Wu discloses an indication method, applied to user equipment (UE), comprising (see abstract: “…a method performed by a user equipment includes receiving, from a serving cell, a CHO configuration and at least an associated CHO execution conditions for a candidate cell…” , par. 0025: “…the method further includes: declaring a radio link failure (RLF) or receiving an handover command; accessing a target cell; transmitting at least one of: an indication to indicate whether the first timer expires when the RLF happens; an indication to indicate whether the first timer expires when receiving the handover command…”): determining a release condition for a conditional handover (CHO) handover command (see fig. 1, #130, par. 0053: “determining whether to execute a CHO based on the evaluation” Examiner’s Analysis: the UE receives CHO configuration/command and CHO execution (e.g. release) condition from the base station and evaluate when to execute it); and releasing the CHO handover command in response to the release condition being satisfied (see fig. 2, par. 0066: “…The operation 240 illustrates determining whether to execute a CHO at least according to the state of the associated CHO execution condition: if the associated CHO execution condition is fulfilled, the CHO is determined to be performed …” Examiner’s Analysis: the UE performs the execution (e.g. release) of the CHO command upon determined that the condition has been fulfilled (e.g. satisfied).
Consider claim 2 in view of claim 1 above. Wu further discloses wherein determining the release condition for the CHO handover command comprises:
determining the release condition based on indications of a network device (see par. 0066: “receiving, from a serving cell, a CHO configuration and associated CHO execution condition for a candidate cell, wherein the associated CHO execution condition includes at least a time-based condition, wherein the time-based condition includes a first timer and a first measurement-based condition, wherein the time-based condition is fulfilled upon the first timer expiry”) or protocol provisions (Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format) .
Consider claim 3 in view of claim 1 above. Wu further discloses wherein releasing the CHO handover command in response to the release condition being satisfied comprises: determining a time elapsed since the CHO handover command has been received by the UE; and releasing the CHO handover command in response to the elapsed time exceeding a preset effective time (see par. 0066: “receiving, from a serving cell, a CHO configuration and associated CHO execution condition for a candidate cell, wherein the associated CHO execution condition includes at least a time-based condition, wherein the time-based condition includes a first timer and a first measurement-based condition, wherein the time-based condition is fulfilled upon the first timer expiry”).
Consider claim 4 in view of claim 3 above. Wu further discloses wherein the effective time is determined based on a timer, and the method further comprises:
in response to receiving the CHO handover command, controlling the timer to start timing (see par. 0066: “starting the first timer upon the reception of the CHO configuration and the associated CHO execution condition”).
Consider claim 6 in view of claim 1 above. Wu further discloses wherein releasing the CHO handover command in response to the release condition being satisfied comprises: completing a handover operation based on the CHO handover command, and releasing the CHO handover command (see par. 0066: “determining whether to execute a CHO at least according to the state of the associated CHO execution condition: if the associated CHO execution condition is fulfilled, the CHO is determined to be performed”).
Consider claim 7 in view of claim 1 above. Wu further discloses the method further comprising at least one of: in response to a handover target cell of the CHO handover command being a serving cell accessed by the UE, determining that the CHO handover command is not to be executed; or in response to the CHO handover command being configured by a cell other than the serving cell, determining that the CHO handover command is not to be executed (see par. 0070: “receiving, from a serving cell, a CHO configuration and associated CHO execution condition for a candidate cell, wherein the associated CHO execution condition includes at least a time-based condition and a first measurement-based condition, and the time-based condition includes a first timer, wherein the time-based condition is fulfilled upon the first timer expiry. The operation 320 illustrates starting the first timer upon the reception of the CHO configuration and the associated CHO execution condition. The operation 330 illustrates evaluating the first measurement-based condition from an offset value (e.g., equals to TTT) ahead of the first timer expiry to the first timer expiry: if the first measurement-based condition is fulfilled in the duration from an offset value ahead of the first timer expiry to the first timer expiry, the associated CHO execution condition is determined to be fulfilled; otherwise, the associated CHO execution condition is determined not to be fulfilled. The operation 340 illustrates determining whether to execute a CHO at least according to whether the associated CHO execution condition is fulfilled: if the associated CHO execution condition is determined to be fulfilled, the CHO is to be performed; and if the associated CHO execution condition is determined to be not fulfilled, the CHO is not to be performed” (Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format)).
Consider claim 8 in view of claim 1 above. Wu further discloses a plurality of release conditions; releasing the CHO handover command in response to at least one of the plurality of release conditions being satisfied (see par. 0120: “If there is no time point between T7 and T8 where the fourth measurement-based condition is fulfilled, the UE determines that the associated CHO conditions are fulfilled. In some embodiments, the UE may stop evaluating the fourth measurement-based condition and/or release the CHO execution condition after T8”).
Consider claim 13. Wu discloses an indication method, applied to a network device, comprising (see abstract: “…a method performed by a user equipment includes receiving, from a serving cell, a CHO configuration and at least an associated CHO execution conditions for a candidate cell…” , par. 0025: “…the method further includes: declaring a radio link failure (RLF) or receiving an handover command; accessing a target cell; transmitting at least one of: an indication to indicate whether the first timer expires when the RLF happens; an indication to indicate whether the first timer expires when receiving the handover command…”): determining a release condition for a conditional handover (CHO) command (see fig. 1, #130, par. 0053: “determining whether to execute a CHO based on the evaluation” Examiner’s Analysis: the UE receives CHO configuration/command and CHO execution (e.g. release) condition from the base station and evaluate when to execute it); and wherein the release condition is used to instruct user equipment (UE) to release the CHO handover command if the release condition is satisfied (see fig. 2, par. 0066: “…The operation 240 illustrates determining whether to execute a CHO at least according to the state of the associated CHO execution condition: if the associated CHO execution condition is fulfilled, the CHO is determined to be performed …” Examiner’s Analysis: the UE performs the execution (e.g. release) of the CHO command upon determined that the condition has been fulfilled (e.g. satisfied).
Consider claim 19. Wu discloses an indication device, comprising: a processor (see fig. 14, #1420); and a memory (see fig. 14, #1430) for storing processor-executable instructions; wherein the processor is configured to perform operations comprising (see abstract: “…a method performed by a user equipment includes receiving, from a serving cell, a CHO configuration and at least an associated CHO execution conditions for a candidate cell…” , par. 0025: “…the method further includes: declaring a radio link failure (RLF) or receiving an handover command; accessing a target cell; transmitting at least one of: an indication to indicate whether the first timer expires when the RLF happens; an indication to indicate whether the first timer expires when receiving the handover command…”): determining a release condition for a conditional handover (CHO) handover command (see fig. 1, #130, par. 0053: “determining whether to execute a CHO based on the evaluation” Examiner’s Analysis: the UE receives CHO configuration/command and CHO execution (e.g. release) condition from the base station and evaluate when to execute it); and releasing the CHO handover command in response to the release condition being satisfied (see fig. 2, par. 0066: “…The operation 240 illustrates determining whether to execute a CHO at least according to the state of the associated CHO execution condition: if the associated CHO execution condition is fulfilled, the CHO is determined to be performed …” Examiner’s Analysis: the UE performs the execution (e.g. release) of the CHO command upon determined that the condition has been fulfilled (e.g. satisfied).
Consider claim 20, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 1. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 1. Furthermore, Wu at figure 14 and paragraph 142 discloses computer program to carry out the tasks as in claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yiu; Candy (US 20210227442 A1), hereafter “Yiu.”
Consider claim 5 in view of claim 1 above, Wu discloses all the limitation that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Yiu, in analogous art; wherein releasing the CHO handover command in
response to the release condition being satisfied comprises: determining an area in which the UE configured with the CHO handover command is located; and in response to the area exceeding a preset effective area, releasing the CHO handover command (see par. 0032: “a location-based conditional handover may be used for NTN. In this case, the UE may perform RACH only if the UE enters the location range in the conditional handover command. The location range may include, for example, a coordinate and a distance, although other representations of the location range may be used. When the UE measures its location and the coordinate of the target cell, if distance is less than configured distance, the UE triggers handover (by performing RACH)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wu and have it include the teachings of Yiu. The motivation would have been in order to provide continued connection of the terminal device (see par. 0032).
12. Claims 9, 14 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LATHEEF; Fasil Abdul et al. (US 20210051550 A1), hereafter “LATHEEF.”
Consider claim 9 in view of claim 1 above, Wu discloses all the limitation that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by LATHEEF, in analogous art; wherein releasing the CHO handover command in response to the release condition being satisfied comprises: in response to the UE entering at least one of an idle state or an inactive state, determining an information field corresponding to a release under the idle state or the inactive state in the CHO handover command; and releasing the CHO handover command based on the information field (see par. 0066: “The UE 102 may receive an RRC release message from the source cell 106 with suspended configurations, which enables the UE 102 to transit to the RRC inactive state from the RRC connection state. However, the suspended configurations do not explicitly indicate the UE 102 for releasing the CHO configurations. In such a scenario, the UE 102 releases the stored CHO configurations upon transiting to the RRC inactive state”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wu and have it include the teachings of LATHEEF. The motivation would have been in order reduce handover failures (see par. 0066).
Consider claim 14 in view of claim 13 above, Wu discloses all the limitation that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by LATHEEF, in analogous art; wherein the CHO handover command comprises
at least one CHO handover command; the method further comprising: configuring, for each of the at least one CHO handover command, an information field corresponding to a release under at least one of an idle state or an inactive state, and wherein the information field is used to instruct the UE whether to release the CHO handover command when entering at least one of the idle state or the inactive state (see par. 0066: “The UE 102 may receive an RRC release message from the source cell 106 with suspended configurations, which enables the UE 102 to transit to the RRC inactive state from the RRC connection state. However, the suspended configurations do not explicitly indicate the UE 102 for releasing the CHO configurations. In such a scenario, the UE 102 releases the stored CHO configurations upon transiting to the RRC inactive state”). The motivation would have been in order reduce handover failures (see par. 0066).
Consider claim 15 in view of claim 14 above, Wu, as modified by LATHEEF discloses, further discloses receiving a first indication message; and determining that the UE stores an unreleased CHO handover command based on the first indication message (see par. 0064).
13. Claims 10, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and LATHEEF as applied to claims 9 and 15 above, and further in view of XIE; Fang (US 20230217335 A1), hereafter “XIE.”
Consider claim 10 in view of claim 9 above, Wu, as modified by LATHEEF discloses all the limitation that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by XIE, in analogous art in response to the UE entering a connected state, if the UE stores an unreleased CHO handover command, sending a first indication message configured to indicate to a serving cell accessed by the UE that the UE stores the unreleased CHO handover command (see par. 0065: “the UE transmits the information related to the CHO and/or CPC to the network when the UE is in an idle state, an inactive state, a connected state or a procedure of being switched to the connected state”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wu, as modified by LATHEEF and have it include the teachings of XIE. The motivation would have been in order reduce network signaling resource (see par. 0065).
Consider claim 11 in view of claim 10 above, Wu, as modified by LATHEEF discloses all the limitation that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by XIE, in analogous art, in response to the UE entering a connected state, sending a request message for reporting the unreleased CHO handover command (see par. 0022: “the UE further includes a configuration module configured to: receive configuration information from the network, and configure the information related to the CHO and/or CPC to be recorded by the UE in accordance with the configuration information; or configure the information related to the CHO and/or CPC to be recorded by the UE in accordance with locally pre-stored information” and par. 0065: “the UE transmits the information related to the CHO and/or CPC to the network when the UE is in an idle state, an inactive state, a connected state or a procedure of being switched to the connected state”). The motivation would have been in order reduce network signaling resource (see par. 0065).
Consider claim 16 in view of claim 15 above, Wu, as modified by LATHEEF discloses all the limitation that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by XIE, in analogous art, in response to the UE entering a connected state, sending a request message for reporting the unreleased CHO handover command (see par. 0065: “the UE transmits the information related to the CHO and/or CPC to the network when the UE is in an idle state, an inactive state, a connected state or a procedure of being switched to the connected state”). The motivation would have been in order reduce network signaling resource (see par. 0065).
Consider claim 17 in view of claim 16 above, Wu, as modified by LATHEEF discloses all the limitation that this claim depends upon, but does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by XIE, in analogous art, receiving a second indication message; and determining the unreleased CHO handover command stored by the UE based on the second indication message (see par. 0022: “the UE further includes a configuration module configured to: receive configuration information from the network, and configure the information related to the CHO and/or CPC to be recorded by the UE in accordance with the configuration information; or configure the information related to the CHO and/or CPC to be recorded by the UE in accordance with locally pre-stored information” and par. 0065: “the UE transmits the information related to the CHO and/or CPC to the network when the UE is in an idle state, an inactive state, a connected state or a procedure of being switched to the connected state”). The motivation would have been in order reduce network signaling resource (see par. 0065).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim(s) 12 and 18 (is/are) objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
15. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230247708 A1: discloses mobility may include decoding a first radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message received from a first cell…
US 20230022967 A1: discloses a method for radio link failure recovery comprises: user equipment (UE) detecting that a handover failure occurs, and when the UE has a stored conditional handover (CHO) configuration…
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCOS BATISTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
December 16, 2025