DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, on pages 11-12 of Remarks, that “Kumar discloses techniques for UE reporting of the outcomes and contextual details of conditional PSCell addition or change (CPAC) procedures in dual-connectivity systems, particularly when CPAC and PCell handover procedures coexist. The UE determines the relative triggering order and success or failure of CPAC and/or (conditional or non-conditional) PCell handover, and after execution, transmits reports conveying observed results, measurements, and state information (e.g., PSCell/SCG state before or after execution) to support logging, optimization, and network management. Kumar is thus fundamentally concerned with post-execution, outcome-dependent reporting, not with signaling that is triggered by fulfillment of execution conditions or with indications sent to condition execution itself. See Figure 3 of Kumar, along with paragraphs 98 and 116-119. Contrastingly, claim 41 in relevant part refers to the sending of an indication of SCG state responsive to CHO execution conditions being fulfilled and, explicitly, where the indication is sent to the target node. Without ambiguity, while Kumar's reporting may include SCG state information, such reporting is triggered or otherwise sent after completion of CPAC and not responsive to fulfillment of CHO execution conditions. Again, see Figure 3, as cited in the action, which shows post-CPAC reporting operations. As the filed application explains, sending the SCG-state indication when CHO execution conditions are fulfilled allows the target candidate MN and/or SN to be informed of the SCG state that is valid at execution time, rather than at configuration time; and decouples SCG-state coordination from repeated updates of stored CHO configurations. In particular, the application emphasizes that the SCG state is more dynamic than the decision to perform handover, and therefore should be conveyed at execution, not continuously reconfigured in advance. Kumar does not discuss/address such challenges and correspondingly does not disclose sending an indication of the SCG state in response to fulfillment of CHO execution conditions. As such, Kumar does not anticipate claim 41, nor the counterpart independent claim 57. Independent claims 45 and 61 relate to a first network node that provides a CHO configuration to a UE, wherein the UE sends an indication of the sort detailed in claim 41. Independent claims 49, 53, and 65 relate to a second (or third) network node that receives such an indication, based on fulfillment of CHO execution conditions. As with respect to claim 41, the cited portions of Kumar relate to sending post-handover reporting (results reporting), such that Kumar does not support the anticipation rejection of any of claims 49, 53, and 65.”
On the contrary, Kumar states, in paragraph [0116]: “As an alternative to 340-a, 340-b, and 340-c, the UE 315 may, at 340-d, determine that the handover procedure (e.g., the CHO procedure or the non-conditional handover procedure) has succeeded. Additionally or alternatively, the UE 315 may determine that the CPAC procedure has succeeded, that the PSCell has been successfully changed, or both. At 345-d, the UE 315 may transmit a report to a master node 305, such as the master node 305-a. The report may be sent based on the success(es) determined at 340-d and may indicate the success(es).” [emphasis added]. Kumar further states, in paragraph [0118]: “Additionally or alternatively, the report transmitted at 345-d may include an indication of the state (e.g., the SCG state) of the source PSCell (e.g., the report may indicate whether the source PSCell was in an activated state or a deactivated state).” [emphasis added]. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the success report of step 345-d is sent from the UE to the Master Node 305-a. Kumar states, in paragraph [0098]: “For example, the UE 315 may attempt a handover of the PCell from the master node 305-b (e.g., the source master node) to the master node 305-a (e.g., the target master node).” Therefore, Kumar clearly discloses the claim 41 limitation “responsive to CHO execution conditions related to the CHO configuration being fulfilled, sending an indication to the target candidate node, which indication indicates an SCG state being set to any one out of: SCG activated or SCG deactivated.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 41-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0007550 (hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding claim 41, Kumar discloses a method for indicating a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) state during a Conditional Handover (CHO) in a wireless communications network, wherein the method is performed by a User Equipment (UE) or by a source Master Node (MN) and the UE is configured with a current SCG (disclosed is a method according to which a UE indicates an SCG state during a conditional handover in a wireless network, whereby the UE is configured with a current SCG, according to [0110], [0118], Fig. 3), and wherein the method comprises:
obtaining from a source MN, a CHO configuration for the UE, which CHO configuration comprises a configuration for a target candidate node, which target candidate node comprises any one or more out of: a target candidate MN and a target candidate Secondary Node (SN) (a source master node sends a conditional handover (CHO) configuration to the UE to enable said UE to handover to a target master node, according to [0090], [0095], [0101], Fig. 3 [step 320]); and
responsive to CHO execution conditions related to the CHO configuration being fulfilled, sending an indication to the target candidate node, which indication indicates an SCG state being set to any one out of: SCG activated or SCG deactivated (when one or more triggering conditions associated with the conditional handover are satisfied, the UE sends a success report that comprises an indication of the SCG state, which may be either “activated” or “deactivated”, to the Master Node 305-a (which is the target master node, according to [0098]), according to [0117]-[0118], Fig. 3 [steps 335, 340-d, and 345-d]).
Regarding claim 45, Kumar discloses a method performed by a first network node acting as a source Master Node (MN) for handling a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) state during a Conditional Handover (CHO) for a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless communications network, wherein the UE is configured with a current SCG (disclosed is a method performed by a source master node, according to [0098], [0100], Fig. 3, whereby an SCG state is indicated in association with a conditional handover of a UE in a wireless network, whereby the UE is configured with a current SCG, according to [0110], [0118], Fig. 3) and wherein the method comprises:
sending to the UE, a Conditional Handover (CHO) configuration for the UE, which CHO configuration comprises a configuration for a target candidate node, which target candidate node comprises any one or more out of: a target candidate Master Node, MN, and a target candidate Secondary Node, SN (the source master node sends a conditional handover (CHO) configuration to the UE to enable said UE to handover to a target master node, according to [0090], [0095], [0101], Fig. 3 [step 320]);
wherein, responsive to CHO execution conditions relating to the CHO configuration being fulfilled, the UE sends an indication to the target candidate node, which indication indicates an SCG state being set to any one out of: SCG activated or SCG deactivated (when one or more triggering conditions associated with the conditional handover are satisfied, the UE sends a success report that comprises an indication of the SCG state, which may be either “activated” or “deactivated”, to the Master Node 305-a (which is the target master node, according to [0098]), according to [0117]-[0118], Fig. 3 [steps 335, 340-d, and 345-d]).
Regarding claim 49, Kumar discloses a method performed by a second network node acting as a target Master Node (MN) for handling a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) state during a Conditional Handover (CHO) for a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless communications network, wherein the UE is configured with a current SCG (disclosed is a method performed by a source master node, according to [0098], Fig. 3, whereby an SCG state is indicated in association with a conditional handover of a UE in a wireless network, whereby the UE is configured with a current SCG, according to [0110], [0118], Fig. 3) and the method comprises:
based on CHO execution conditions relating to a CHO configuration being fulfilled, receiving an indication from the UE indicating whether an SCG state is set to activated or deactivated (when one or more triggering conditions associated with the conditional handover are satisfied, the UE sends a success report that comprises an indication of the SCG state, which may be either “activated” or “deactivated”, to the Master Node 305-a (which is the target master node, according to [0098]), according to [0117]-[0118], Fig. 3 [steps 335, 340-d, and 345-d]).
Regarding claim 53, Kumar discloses a method performed by a third network node acting as a target Secondary Node (SN) for handling a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) state during a Conditional Handover (CHO) for a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless communications network, wherein the UE is configured with a current SCG (disclosed is a method that is performed by a base station 105 in relation to Figs. 1-5 and 10-11 (whereby Fig. 2 depicts a base station that corresponds to a secondary node of an SCG) in relation to a conditional handover procedure, whereby a configuration for the procedure is transmitted to a UE (the UE being configured with a current SCG, according to [0110], [0118], Fig. 3), according to [0219]-[0220], Fig. 13 [step 1305]) and the method comprises:
based on CHO execution conditions relating to a CHO configuration being fulfilled, receiving an indication from the UE, which indication indicates an SCG state being set to any one out of: SCG activated or SCG deactivated (a report is received from a master node, said report comprising information related to the conditional procedure and the primary secondary cell after successful handover (whereby the master node in turn received this information in a report that was sent from the UE that includes an indication of the SCG state, which may be either “activated” or “deactivated, according to [0118], Fig. 3 [step 345-d]), according to [0222], Fig. 13 [step 1315]).
Claim 57 recites the User Equipment (UE), comprising a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (the UE comprises a processor and a memory that stores instructions that are executed by said processor, according to [0006], [0149], [0153]), cause the UE to perform the method recited in claim 41, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 41.
Claim 61 recites the first network node acting as a source Master Node (MN), comprising processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (an MN comprises a processor and a memory that stores instructions that are executed by said processor, according to [0260]), cause the source MN to perform the method recited in claim 45, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 45.
Claim 65 recites the second network node acting as a target Master Node (MN), comprising processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (an MN comprises a processor and a memory that stores instructions that are executed by said processor, according to [0260]), cause the source MN to perform the method recited in claim 49, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 49.
Regarding claim 42, Kumar discloses the method according to claim 41, wherein the SCG state is set according to any one out of the current SCG state, and/or a target SCG state (the SCG state indication that is included in the report indicates the state of the source PSCell [“current SCG state”], according to [0110], [0118]).
Regarding claim 43, Kumar discloses the method according to claim 41, further comprising:
obtaining, the current SCG state, which current SCG state is set to any one out of: SCG activated or SCG deactivated (the SCG state indication that is included in the report indicates the state of the source PSCell [“current SCG state”], according to [0110], [0118]), and
wherein the indication to the target candidate node indicates the current SCG state, which indication will set a target SCG state to SCG activation or SCG deactivation, initiated by the selected target candidate node (the report may indicate that the SCG state is retained or modified (e.g., switched from activated to deactivated or from deactivated to activated), according to [0110]).
Regarding claim 44, Kumar discloses the method according to claim 41, wherein: obtaining, a target SCG state to any one out of: always deactivated, always activated, a value pre-configured, as activated, or deactivated, a latest SCG state the UE has when CHO is executed, and wherein the indication to the target candidate node indicates the target SCG state (the SCG state may be retained [“a latest SCG state the UE has when CHO is executed”] during the conditional handover, according to [0110]).
Claims 46, 50, 54, 58, and 62 do not differ substantively from claim 42, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 42.
Claims 47 and 59 do not differ substantively from claim 43, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 43.
Claims 48, 60, and 64 do not differ substantively from claim 44, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 44.
Regarding claim 51, Kumar discloses the method according to claim 49, further comprising setting a target SCG state to SCG activation or SCG deactivation, based on the indication (the report may indicate that the SCG state is retained or modified (e.g., switched from activated to deactivated or from deactivated to activated), according to [0110]).
Regarding claim 52, Kumar discloses the method according to claim 49, comprising any one out of: responsive to the indication indicating that a target SCG state comprises deactivated, activating the SCG after CHO execution, depending on the traffic assessment after CHO execution; responsive to the indication indicating a target SCG state comprises activated, deactivating the SCG after CHO execution, depending on the traffic assessment after CHO execution; responsive to the indication indicating a target SCG state comprises a pre-configured, value as activated or deactivated, deactivating the SCG after CHO execution, depending on the traffic assessment after CHO execution (the report, which includes measurements for one or more candidate PSCells, may indicate switching from the SCG deactivated state to the SCG activated state [“responsive to the indication indicating that a target SCG state comprises deactivated, activating the SCG after CHO execution, depending on the traffic assessment after CHO execution”], according to [0110], [0112]).
Regarding claim 55, Kumar discloses the method according to claim 53, further comprising, responsive to the indication indicating a current SCG state, setting a target SCG state to SCG activation or SCG deactivation, based on the indication (the report may indicate that the SCG state is retained or modified (e.g., switched from activated to deactivated or from deactivated to activated), according to [0110]).
Claim 56 does not differ substantively from claim 52, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 52.
Regarding claim 63, Kumar discloses sending to the UE, a current SCG state, which current SCG state is set to any one out of: SCG activated or SCG deactivated, and wherein the indication to the target candidate node indicates the current SCG state, which indication will set a target SCG state to SCG activation or SCG deactivation, initiated by the selected target candidate node (the SCG state indication that is included in the report indicates the state of the source PSCell [“current SCG state”], whereby the report may indicate that the SCG state is retained or modified (e.g., switched from activated to deactivated or from deactivated to activated), according to [0110], [0118]).
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights