DETAILED ACTION
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the RCE filed on 8/25/2026, for which the amendment dated 7/29/2026 and corresponding arguments filed on the same date have been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, 10-14, 17, 21 and 24 are currently pending in this application, with claims 1, 7 and 14 being independent. Claims 1, 7 and 14 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot, because the new ground of rejection was caused by the amendment and does not rely on any reference applied in the aforementioned rejection 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 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)(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 1, 5-7, 10-14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Kim, et al (US PG Publication 2023/0413135), hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches
a method for configuration, executed by a network-side device, comprising:
configuring a terminal to report related information of Conditional Handover (CHO) or Conditional Pscell Addition or Change (CPAC)
([0011] Base station transceiver to transmit, to the terminal, configuration information on the condition-based handover, and control the transceiver to receive, from the terminal, a radio link failure (RLF) report based on the configuration information); and
receiving the related information of the CHO or CPAC reported by the terminal
([0110] As for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40)),
wherein the related information of the CHO or CPAC comprises one or more of:
1 bit, or an identifier, ID, of a CHO candidate cell, wherein the 1 bit indicates that cell selection is performed after Radio Link Failure, RLF
([0110] In this case, as for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40). At the time of the RLF declaration, the RLF content being stored is as in Table 1 below
TABLE 1 failedPCellId This field is used to indicate the target PCell of the failed handover),
or
CHO failure occurs to the terminal and the CHO candidate cell is selected by performing the cell selection, and the ID of the CHO candidate cell is an ID of a CHO candidate cell that is selected by performing cell selection after RLF, or CHO failure occurs to the terminal; and
at least a running situation of a first timer or a number of Radio Link
Control (RLC) retransmissions when performing the CHO or CPAC or when the CHO or CPAC is successful
([0148] In case that the random access process is successfully completed, the UE considers that the condition-based handover has been successfully completed, and stops the timer T304 being driven).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein receiving the related information of the CHO or CPAC reported by the terminal comprises:
receiving an RRC reestablishment request message or a RLF report sent by the terminal in a connected state or in a process of changing to the connected state, the RRC reestablishment request message or the RLF report comprising the related information of the CHO or CPAC
([0110] In this case, as for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40). At the time of the RLF declaration, the RLF content being stored is as in Table 1 below
TABLE 1 reconnectCellId This field is used to indicate the cell in which the UE comes back to connected after connection failure and after failing to perform reestablishment); or,
receiving a message A sent by the terminal in a process of performing two-step RA to the target cell, the message A comprising the related information of the CHO or CPAC.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein receiving the related information of the CHO or CPAC reported by the terminal comprises:
sending a first request to the terminal
([0111] The base station requests the stored RLF content from the UE by using a UEInformationRequest message (1h-55));
receiving the related information of the CHO or CPAC reported by the terminal according to the first request
([0110] In this case, as for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40). At the time of the RLF declaration, the RLF content being stored
[0111] The UE having received the request reports the RLF content being stored by using a UEInformationResponse message (1h-60)); or,
receiving the related information of the CHO or CPAC initiatively reported by the terminal
([0110] In this case, as for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40); or,
receiving a notification message sent by the terminal, the notification message indicating that the terminal has the related information of the CHO or CPAC;
sending a second request to the terminal according to the notification message; and
receiving the related information of the CHO or CPAC reported by the terminal according to the second request.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches
a method for information reporting, executed by a terminal, comprising:
reporting related information of Conditional Handover (CHO) or Conditional PsCell Addition or Change CPAC to a network-side device
([0110] As for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40)),
wherein the related information of the CHO or CPAC comprises one or more of:
1 bit, or an identifier, ID, of a CHO candidate cell, wherein the 1 bit indicates that cell selection is performed after Radio Link Failure, RLF
([0110] In this case, as for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40). At the time of the RLF declaration, the RLF content being stored is as in Table 1 below
TABLE 1 failedPCellId This field is used to indicate the target PCell of the failed handover),
or
CHO failure occurs to the terminal and the CHO candidate cell is selected by performing the cell selection, and the ID of the CHO candidate cell is an ID of a CHO candidate cell that is selected by performing cell selection after RLF, or CHO failure occurs to the terminal; and
at least a running situation of a first timer or a number of Radio Link
Control (RLC) retransmissions when performing the CHO or CPAC or when the CHO or CPAC is successful
([0148] In case that the random access process is successfully completed, the UE considers that the condition-based handover has been successfully completed, and stops the timer T304 being driven).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising:
acquiring configuration information of the network-side device, the configuration information configured to configure the terminal to report the related information of the CHO or CPAC
([0011] Base station transceiver to transmit, to the terminal, configuration information on the condition-based handover, and control the transceiver to receive, from the terminal, a radio link failure (RLF) report based on the configuration information).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the method of claim 7,
wherein the network-side device comprises one of:
a network management function,
a Trace Collection Entity (TCE)
([0069] The base station includes configuration information that includes at least [0072] Trace collection entity (TCE) ID information), or
a base station
(Base Station Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the method of claim 7,
wherein reporting the related information of the CHO or CPAC to the network-
side device comprises:
sending an RRC reestablishment request message or a RLF report in a connected state or in a process of changing to the connected state, the RRC reestablishment request message or the RLF report comprising the related information of the CHO or CPAC
([0110] In this case, as for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40). At the time of the RLF declaration, the RLF content being stored is as in Table 1 below
TABLE 1 reconnectCellId This field is used to indicate the cell in which the UE comes back to connected after connection failure and after failing to perform reestablishment); or,
sending a message A in a process of performing two-step RA to the target cell, the message A comprising the related information of the CHO or CPAC.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the method of claim 7,
wherein reporting the related information of the CHO or CPAC to the network-side device comprises:
receiving a first request sent by the network-side device, and reporting the related information of the CHO or CPAC to the network-side device according to the first request
([0110] In this case, as for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40). At the time of the RLF declaration, the RLF content being stored
[0111] The base station requests the stored RLF content from the UE by using a UEInformationRequest message (1h-55). The UE having received the request reports the RLF content being stored by using a UEInformationResponse message (1h-60)); or,
initiatively reporting the related information of the CHO or CPAC to the network-side device
([0110] In this case, as for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40); or,
sending a notification message, the notification message indicating that the terminal has the related information of the CHO or CPAC, receiving a second request sent by the network-side device; and
reporting the related information of the CHO or CPAC to the network-side device according to the second request.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches
a network-side device
(Base Station Fig. 18), comprising:
a processor
([0223] The controller 1r-50 may include at least one processor);
a memory
(Storage unit 1r-40, Fig. 18); and
a program stored in the memory and executable by the processor
([0222] The storage unit 1r-40 stores therein a basic program for an operation of the main base station, application programs, and data of configuration information
[0223] The controller 1r-50 records or reads data in or from the storage unit 1r-40. For this, the controller 1r-50 may include at least one processor),
wherein the processor is configured to:
configure a terminal to report related information of Conditional Handover (CHO) or Conditional Pscell Addition or Change (CPAC)
([0011] Base station transceiver to transmit, to the terminal, configuration information on the condition-based handover, and control the transceiver to receive, from the terminal, a radio link failure (RLF) report based on the configuration information); and
receive the related information of the CHO or CPAC reported by the terminal
([0110] As for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40)),
wherein the related information of the CHO or CPAC comprises one or more of:
1 bit, or an identifier, ID, of a CHO candidate cell, wherein the 1 bit indicates that cell selection is performed after Radio Link Failure, RLF
([0110] In this case, as for the RLF, the UE determines whether the condition-based handover has been configured and whether the corresponding handover has not yet been executed (1h-35). If so, the UE stores an (1-bit) indicator indicating the late CHO execution in the content to be included in the RLF report (1h-40). At the time of the RLF declaration, the RLF content being stored is as in Table 1 below
TABLE 1 failedPCellId This field is used to indicate the target PCell of the failed handover), or
CHO failure occurs to the terminal and the CHO candidate cell is selected by performing the cell selection, and the ID of the CHO candidate cell is an ID of a CHO candidate cell that is selected by performing cell selection after RLF, or CHO failure occurs to the terminal; and
at least a running situation of a first timer or a number of Radio Link Control (RLC) retransmissions when performing the CHO or CPAC or when the CHO or CPAC is successful
([0148] In case that the random access process is successfully completed, the UE considers that the condition-based handover has been successfully completed, and stops the timer T304 being driven).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches
a terminal
(UE Fig. 17),
comprising:
a processor
([0216] The controller 1q-40 may include at least one processor);
a memory
(Storage unit 1q-30, Fig. 17); and
a program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, the program implementing steps of the method of claim 1 when the program is executed by the processor
([0215] The storage unit 1q-30 stores therein a basic program for an operation of the UE, application programs, and data of configuration information).
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 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.
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.
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 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.
Claims 4, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Fang, et al (WO 2021093213), hereafter Fang.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the method of claim 1.
Kim does not teach
further comprising:
performing at least the CHO configuration optimization or the RA configuration optimization according to the related information of the CHO and CPAC.
In the same field of endeavor, Fang teaches
further comprising:
performing at least the CHO configuration optimization or the RA configuration optimization according to the related information of the CHO and CPAC
(Pg. 1, 4th Paragraph A wireless network configuration can be optimized by analyzing the related data reported by a user equipment (UE) or base station (RAN node) to enhance the performance of the wireless network
Pg. 2, 6th Paragraph through Pg. 3, 1st Paragraph The mobility enhancement related information includes: a Conditional Primary secondary cell group cell Addition or Change (CPAC) failure information, a Conditional Handover (CHO) failure cause information, or a successful handover related information).
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 invention of Kim, which includes optimization, to include Fang’s teaching of optimization, for the benefit of enhancing the performance of the wireless network (see Pg. 1, 4th Paragraph).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches the network-side device of claim 14.
Kim does not teach
wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform at least the CHO configuration optimization or the RA configuration optimization according to the related information of the CHO and CPAC.
In the same field of endeavor, Fang teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform at least the CHO configuration optimization or the RA configuration optimization according to the related information of the CHO and CPAC
(Pg. 1, 4th Paragraph A wireless network configuration can be optimized by analyzing the related data reported by a user equipment (UE) or base station (RAN node) to enhance the performance of the wireless network
Pg. 2, 6th Paragraph through Pg. 3, 1st Paragraph The mobility enhancement related information includes: a Conditional Primary secondary cell group cell Addition or Change (CPAC) failure information, a Conditional Handover (CHO) failure cause information, or a successful handover related information).
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 invention of Kim, which includes optimization, to include Fang’s teaching of optimization, for the benefit of enhancing the performance of the wireless network (see Pg. 1, 4th Paragraph).
Regarding claim 24, Kim teaches the method of claim 7.
Kim does not teach
wherein the related information of the CHO or CPAC is used for the network device to perform at least CHO configuration optimization or RA configuration optimization.
In the same field of endeavor, Fang teaches
wherein the related information of the CHO or CPAC is used for the network device to perform at least CHO configuration optimization or RA configuration optimization
(Pg. 1, 4th Paragraph A wireless network configuration can be optimized by analyzing the related data reported by a user equipment (UE) or base station (RAN node) to enhance the performance of the wireless network
Pg. 2, 6th Paragraph through Pg. 3, 1st Paragraph The mobility enhancement related information includes: a Conditional Primary secondary cell group cell Addition or Change (CPAC) failure information, a Conditional Handover (CHO) failure cause information, or a successful handover related information).
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 invention of Kim, which includes optimization, to include Fang’s teaching of optimization, for the benefit of enhancing the performance of the wireless network (see Pg. 1, 4th Paragraph).
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eklof, et al (US PG Publication 2022/0201582), hereafter Eklof, teaches a wireless device that performs a conditional mobility procedure, including receiving, from a radio network node, a command to perform the conditional mobility procedure when the wireless device detects fulfilment of a condition.
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Frank Donado whose telephone number is (571) 270-5361. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays between 8 am and 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Patent Examiner (SPE) 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 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.
/FRANK E DONADO/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights