DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 3/25/2026 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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 51 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2020/0022043 (Pelletier et al.).
As to claims 51 and 69, Pelletier teaches a user equipment comprising: at least one processor; and a memory containing program code executable by the at least one processor (see figure 1B), and whereby execution of the program code by the at least one processor causes the user equipment to:
maintain a wireless connection to a wireless communication network (206, fig 2);
receive a conditional handover (CHO) command, the CHO command indicating to the user equipment that the user equipment shall trigger execution of a CHO from a source cell to a target cell of the wireless communication network upon fulfilment of one or more first conditions related signal quality of the source cell and/or signal quality of the target cell (208, fig 2 and paragraphs 87-93, 100 and 101, for both the target and source cells the UE is instructed to monitor for handover conditions, including conditions associated with cell quality);
monitor one or more first conditions (214, fig 2); and
responsive to determining that the one or more first conditions are fulfilled, delaying triggering execution of the CHO until a second condition is fulfilled, the second condition based on the wireless connection; determining when an uplink data buffer of the user equipment is empty (216, 232 and 234, fig 2, and paragraphs 87-93, 100 and 101, for both the target and source cells the UE is instructed to monitor for handover conditions, including the emptying of the UL buffer. Phase in conditions can read on first conditions, and phase out conditions [which include the UL buffer condition], or just the UL buffer condition, can read on the second condition).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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 55-56 and 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier in view of US 2024/0107399 (Naseer-Ul-Islam et al.).
As to claim 71, Pelletier teaches a method of operation by a user equipment, the method comprising:
determining that trigger conditions for triggering execution of a conditional handover (CHO) are satisfied, the trigger conditions being radio-signal conditions (208, fig 2 and paragraphs 87-93, 100 and 101, for both the target and source cells the UE is instructed to monitor for handover conditions, including conditions associated with cell quality); and
responsive to determining that an uplink data buffer of the user equipment is not empty, delaying triggering execution of the CHO until emptying of the uplink data buffer (216, 232 and 234, fig 2, and paragraphs 87-93, 100 and 101, for both the target and source cells the UE is instructed to monitor for handover conditions, including the emptying of the UL buffer. Phase in conditions can read on conditions for CHO, and phase out conditions [which include the UL buffer condition], or just the UL buffer condition, can read on the subsequent condition).
What is explicitly lacking from Pelletier is until an earlier one of: emptying of the uplink data buffer or an expiration of a timer that defines a maximum allowable time for delaying triggering execution of the CHO.
In analogous art, Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches handover conditions having a maximum allowed delay after the conditions are met (see Naseer-Ul-Islam, paragraphs 80 and 83). In combination with Pelletier this would render an earlier one of the emptying of the buffer (as taught by Pelletier) or expiration of the maximum allowable time associated with the other handover conditions triggering the execution of the CHO.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Pelletier so as to ensure that the handover condition is appropriately implemented.
As to claim 55, what is lacking from Pelletier is wherein the user equipment determines that one or more first conditions are fulfilled by determining that a signal-quality condition has been satisfied continuously for a time-to-trigger duration, and wherein the user equipment delays triggering the CHO execution after expiration of the time-to-trigger duration until the second condition is fulfilled.
In analogous art, Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches a handover condition having a time-to-trigger (TTT) (see Naseer-Ul-Islam, paragraphs 80 and 83). In combination with Pelletier this would result in the second condition (buffer emptying) being fulfilled after the expiration of the time-to-trigger for the first condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Pelletier so as to ensure that the handover condition is appropriately implemented.
As to claim 56, what is further lacking from Pelletier is wherein the second condition is fulfilled upon an earlier one of two events, the two events being emptying of the uplink data buffer and expiration of a maximum triggering delay.
In analogous art, Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches handover conditions having a maximum allowed delay after the conditions are met (see Naseer-Ul-Islam, paragraphs 80 and 83). In combination with Pelletier this would render an earlier one of the emptying of the buffer (as taught by Pelletier) or expiration of the maximum allowable time associated with the other handover conditions triggering the execution of the CHO.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Pelletier so as to ensure that the handover condition is appropriately implemented.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier in view of US 2018/0367844 (Fu et al.).
As to claim 54, what is further lacking from Pelletier is wherein determining when the uplink data buffer is empty comprises detecting or inferring that the uplink data buffer is empty based on a machine learning model.
In analogous art, Fu teaches using machine learning to when a data buffer is empty (see Fu, paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Pelletier so as to enhance the efficiency and reliability of the data buffer monitoring.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights