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 filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues (page 9):
"The primary references relied upon are 3GPP working-group contributions that discuss open issues and proposals for conditional handover in non-terrestrial networks. While such documents may qualify as prior art, they are discussion papers reflecting evolving proposals rather than enabling disclosures of a finished apparatus or method that implements the precise combinations and the specific handling of delayed reception that characterize the subject matter of the claims. The Examiner's mappings frequently rely on interpretive notes that go beyond the explicit teachings of the references. The subject matter of the claims, by contrast, is directed to concrete solutions for the practical problem created by the long propagation delays of non- terrestrial networks, a problem expressly recognized and solved in the present Specification at, for example, the description accompanying Figures 2(a)-(c), 3(a)-(c), and 4(a)-(b) and the associated text explaining the consequences of a reception time T3 that is later than the configured first threshold T1."
Examiner Answer:
Applicant Argues the 3GPP references mapping that go "beyond the explicit teaching of the references." However, applicant did not point to any specific evidence of teaching or mapping that went beyond what was taught by the references. Therefore, it is unclear how the teachings go beyond what was taught by the refences.
Examiner further notes 3GPP references fall under 102(a)(1). 35 U.S.C. 102(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (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; or (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.
The 3GPP references used for rejecting the independent claims fall under “printed publication”, therefore, any disclosure or teaching taught by the 3GPP can be used as basis for rejection because the publishing date is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The 3GPP reference discusses the technology of UE and base station and more specifically CHO configuration and a CHO execution condition such as a time-based event and a measurement-based event, and a location-based event and a measurement-based event.
Lastly, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner suggest to further amend the independent claims to clearly point applicant invention and to differentiate from the prior art cited for rejection.
Applicant Further Argues (Pages 8-9):
"Independent claims 1, 16, and 18 share corresponding elements and may be argued together. Claim 1 recites a user equipment comprising a processor that is configured to receive, at least a conditional handover configuration and a conditional handover execution condition for a target cell, wherein the conditional handover execution condition includes a time-based event and at least one measurement-based event, or a location-based event and at least one measurement- based event, and to evaluate whether the conditional handover execution condition is fulfilled. Claims 16 and 18 are of similar scope reciting a processor for wireless communication and a method performed by a user equipment, respectively. The Specification explains that the evaluation requires both the time-based (or location-based) event and the measurement-based event or events to be fulfilled simultaneously, and that the measurement-based events themselves must all be fulfilled at the same time when more than one is configured.
The Examiner acknowledges on page 5 of the Office Action that NEC does not explicitly disclose the receiving step and relies on Ericsson for that limitation. NEC, as cited by the Examiner at pages 3-5 of the Office Action (citing NEC section 2.4 and proposals 8-10), discusses proposals for time or timer-based conditions, measurement-based events such as A3, A4, and A5, and location-based conditions, and states that conditional handover may be executed only if both a location-based condition and signal-based conditions are fulfilled. Ericsson, as cited by the Examiner at pages 5-6 of the Office Action (citing Ericsson pages 11-12 and 16), discusses providing the user equipment with conditional handover configurations that include a time-based condition event and a measurement-based condition, and states that the user equipment can perform conditional handover toward a candidate cell when the measurement-based condition is met in a configured time duration. Neither reference, alone or in the proposed combination, teaches or suggests a user equipment or corresponding method whose processor is configured to receive a conditional handover execution condition of a time-based event together with at least one measurement-based event, or a location-based event together with at least one measurement-based event, and then evaluate whether that specifically structured condition is fulfilled. NEC presents location-based and measurement-based conditions as potentially combinable options among a larger set of open proposals, while Ericsson focuses on time-duration implementations realized by dual configurations for the same candidate cell. The Examiner's combination simply juxtaposes these discussions without demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to construct the evaluation of which conditions are fulfilled."
Examiner Answer:
The Examiner relied on the primary reference, NEC, to teach a "condExecutionCond" that requires both a time-based condition and a measurement condition (A3, A4, and A5). The UE needs to receive a CHO configuration and a CHO execution condition at some point to perform the measurement within the given time frame, as disclosed in section 2.4 of NEC. The Examiner therefore introduced Ericsson to explicitly teach a UE receiving a CHO configuration and a CHO execution condition for a target cell. The combination of NEC and Ericsson discloses claims 1, 16, and 18.
The primary motivation for combining the NEC and Ericsson proposals is that while NEC discloses a UE performing CHO with a time-based condition, it does not specify the type of time or the reference source for that condition; these gaps are addressed in Ericsson's 3GPP document. For example, the time based condition using UTC in the network side, and thus one in ordinary skill in the art would recognize the method Ericsson of sending the CHO configuration and the CHO execution condition would be used in combination with NEC because it improves the NEC by reducing the cost on the UE side as the CHO execution condition is based on UTC time (Ericsson, page 18, ZTE, "Agree with Ericsson that UTC time would be more workable from NW's perspective and interpreting UTC time costs almost nothing from UE side.").
Applicant Argues (page 9-10):
"The motivation offered by the Examiner on page 6 of the Office Action, namely the benefit of using UTC time to reduce cost (citing Ericsson page 18, ZTE comment), is unrelated to the claimed receiving and evaluating steps. Cost reduction associated with UTC interpretation does not provide a rational underpinning for modifying NEC's configuration proposals with Ericsson's receiving language in order to arrive at the claimed alternative structure and evaluation. The combination is therefore the product of improper hindsight. A person of ordinary skill in the art of fifth-generation and non-terrestrial-network mobility would have been familiar with conditional handover frameworks in 3GPP TS 38.331 and with the unique propagation delays of non-terrestrial networks, yet would not have found it obvious from the cited discussion documents to implement the precise alternative condition structure and evaluation recited in claims 1, 16, and 18. The Specification makes clear that the subject matter of the claims solves the concrete problem of ensuring that the user equipment correctly evaluates a combined condition under the long-delay conditions of a non-terrestrial network, which the cited 3GPP contributions leave unresolved alone and in combination. Because the combination fails to teach or suggest all limitations of the independent claims, and because the articulated motivation is insufficient and unrelated to the claimed features, the rejection of claims 1, 16, and 18 is traversed."
Examiner Answer:
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
See the Examiner response, pages 5-6 paragraph 6, for explanation for combination.
Examiner further notes, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Responding to Applicant Argument (Rejection of Claims 19 and 20, Pages 11-12):
Applicants argue the same issues as pointed out in NEC and Ericsson. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar responses are applied here, and the motivation regarding how Ericsson improves Vangala as well as how the combination of Vangala and Ericsson reads on claims 19-20 applies as well; see pages 5-6, paragraph 6 for how Ericsson UTC time improves CHO, and page 15, which discloses the motivation for combining Vangala and Ericsson.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEC (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113 bis electronic, R2-2103825) (IDS, 05/29/2024) in view of Ericsson ([Offline-103][NTN] CHO and NTN-TN mobility aspects (Ericsson)_v28_Sequans).
Regarding Claim 1, NEC discloses A user equipment (UE) comprising: at least one memory; and atleast one processorcoupled with the at least one memory and cause the UE to (section 2. Discussion, “UE” (i.e., memory and processor are inherited of the UE.)):
receive(page 4, section 2.4 Configuration, paragraph above section 3, "For a UE, handover can be triggered due to multiple reasons e.g., UE mobility or service/feeder link switch. will above proposals, gNB is able to configure one or multiple conditions to cover all possible handover cases." (i.e., doesn’t explicitly state receive, but that will be mapped by a different reference.))
and a CHO execution condition for (page 3, section 2.4 Configuration, paragraph 1, "condExecutionCond" (i.e., UE receiving “condExecutionCond” that read on “a CHO execution condition” and the target cell will be more explicit by another reference.)),
wherein the CHO execution condition includes:
a time-based event (page 2, section 2.4 configuration, 4), "Time/timer-based condition") and at least one measurement-based event (page 2, section 2.4 "1) A3 2) A4 3) A5" and page 3, proposal 8, "Location-based condition could be configured per ConditionalReconfiguration (i.e., per serving cell instead of per target cell). When location-based condition is configured, CHO is executed only if both location-based condition and signal-based conditions (if configured) are fulfilled." (i.e., "signal-based condition" like A3, A4, A5 is reading on measurement-based event.)),
or a location-based event (page 4, section 2.4, location-based condition, proposal 10, "UE performs CHO when both condition including location-based condition and measurement-based condition are met" (i.e., UE performing location-based event)) and at least one measurement-based event (page 4, section 2.4, location-based condition, proposal 9, "UE starts to evaluate the measurement-based condition after the location condition is met" (i.e., UE is also performing measurement-based event.));
and evaluate whether the CHO execution condition (page 3, section 2.4 Configuration, paragraph 1, "condExecutionCond") is fulfilled (page 3, section 2.4 Configuration, proposal 8, "CHO is executed only if both location-based condition and signal-based conditions (if configured) are fulfilled…" and page 4, section 2.4, location-based condition, proposal 10, "UE performs CHO when both condition including location-based condition and measurement-based condition are met" (i.e., performing CHO after the two conditions are met.)).
However, NEC does not explicitly disclose receive
Ericsson discloses receive, at least a conditional handover (CHO) configuration (page 12, paragraph 7, "When the UE receives the CHO configuration including time duration condition, UE starts the first timer T1. When the first timer T1 expires, the UE starts the timer T2" (i.e., UE receiving CHO configuration.))
and a CHO execution condition for a target cell (page 11, last paragraph, "Further, there is a suggestion to implement the time duration by providing the UE with two CHO configurations for the same candidate target cell, where the first CHO configuration would consist of two conditional events (MeasId’s), a time based condition event set to a value representing [t1] and a measurement based condition (A3, A4 or A5)," and page 12, paragraph 7, "When the UE receives the CHO configuration including time duration condition, UE starts the first timer T1. When the first timer T1 expires, the UE starts the timer T2" and page 12, paragraph 11, "UE can perform CHO towards the corresponding candidate cell when the measurement-based condition is met in the configured time duration." (i.e., UE receiving CHO for a candidate cell.)).
NEC and Ericsson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are solving problems of CHO in NTN network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NEC to implement the of UE of Ericsson as there are benefits that is taught in Ericsson that is not provided in NEC such as using UTC as the timer in order to reduce cost (Ericsson, page 18, ZTE, “Agree with Ericsson that UTC time would be more workable from NW’s perspective and interpreting UTC time costs almost nothing from UE side.” ).
Regarding Claim 2, NEC in view of Ericsson discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
NEC further discloses wherein (page 2, section 2.4 "1) A3 2) A4 3) A5").
Ericsson further discloses wherein (page 12, paragraph 14, "Implementation wise the time window denoted by [t1] and [t2] can be realized by providing the UE with two CHO configurations for the same candidate target cell where the first CHO configuration contains two condition events, a time based condition event [t1] and a measurement condition (A3, A4 or A5)," (i.e., the measurement based on A3, A4, or A5.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 16, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vangala (US-20230041601-A1) in view of Ericsson ([Offline-103][NTN] CHO and NTN-TN mobility aspects (Ericsson)_v28_Sequans).
Regarding Claim 19, Vangala further discloses a base station (BS), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the BS to:
transmit a reconfiguration message including at least a conditional handover (CHO) configuration and a CHO execution condition for a target cell (paragraph [0136], “The base stations hosting the cells may be based on earth and/or on the non-terrestrial platforms. Thus, in some embodiments, a non-terrestrial platform may: receive data from an earth-based base station and forward the data to an earth-based UE via downlink transmission; and receive data from the UE via uplink transmission and forward the data to the earth-based base station.” and paragraph [0246], “the network may transmit (to the UE) configuration information I.sub.C that indicates, for each configured cell of the UE, (a) a corresponding priority level and (b) corresponding CHO parameters defining a corresponding CHO criterion. The corresponding CHO criterion may be selected from the CHO criteria described above. For example, the corresponding CHO criterion may be selected from the following list (or from a sublist of the following list):”),
wherein the CHO execution condition includes: a time-based event (paragraph [0245], “At any given time, the UE may determine that the initial CHO criteria for two or more of the potential target cells are satisfied, in which case, the UE may select the cell (from the two or more potential target cells) that has the highest priority. The UE may then test one or more additional CHO criteria for conditional handover to the selected cell.” and paragraph [0246], “for each configured cell of the UE, (a) a corresponding priority level and (b) corresponding CHO parameters defining a corresponding CHO criterion. The corresponding CHO criterion may be selected from the CHO criteria described above.” and paragraph [0248], “timer-based CHO criterion with network configured time value;”);
or a location-based event (paragraph [0245], “At any given time, the UE may determine that the initial CHO criteria for two or more of the potential target cells are satisfied, in which case, the UE may select the cell (from the two or more potential target cells) that has the highest priority. The UE may then test one or more additional CHO criteria for conditional handover to the selected cell.” and paragraph [0246], “for each configured cell of the UE, (a) a corresponding priority level and (b) corresponding CHO parameters defining a corresponding CHO criterion. The corresponding CHO criterion may be selected from the CHO criteria described above.” and paragraph [0247], “location-based CHO criterion with network configured coverage area and size parameter;”); and
However, Vangala does not explicitly disclose wherein the CHO execution condition includes: a time-based event and at least one measurement-based event or a location-based event and at least one measurement-based event.
Ericsson further discloses a CHO execution condition for a target cell (page 11, last paragraph, "Further, there is a suggestion to implement the time duration by providing the UE with two CHO configurations for the same candidate target cell, where the first CHO configuration would consist of two conditional events (MeasId’s), a time based condition event set to a value representing [t1] and a measurement based condition (A3, A4 or A5)," and page 16, paragraph 3, "When the UE receives the CHO configuration including time duration condition, UE starts the first timer T1. When the first timer T1 expires, the UE starts the timer T2" and page 16, paragraph 7, "UE can perform CHO towards the corresponding candidate cell when the measurement-based condition is met in the configured time duration." (i.e., UE receiving CHO for a candidate cell.)),
wherein the CHO execution condition includes: a time-based event and at least one measurement-based event (page 12, paragraph 14, “Implementation wise the time window denoted by [t1] and [t2] can be realized by providing the UE with two CHO configurations for the same candidate target cell where the first CHO configuration contains two condition events, a time based condition event [t1] and a measurement condition (A3, A4 or A5),”)
or a location-based event and at least one measurement-based event (page 20, last paragraph, “Location-based condition, in combination with one of CondEvent A3, CondEvent A4, CondEvent A5, CondEvent A3& CondEvent A5 can be supported in CHO execution condition as follows.”).
Vangala and Ericsson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are solving problems of CHO in NTN network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vangala to implement the of UE of Ericsson as there are benefits that is taught in Ericsson that is not provided in Vangala such as using UTC as the timer in order to reduce cost (Ericsson, page 18, ZTE, “Agree with Ericsson that UTC time would be more workable from NW’s perspective and interpreting UTC time costs almost nothing from UE side.” ).
Regarding Claim 20, Vangala in view of Ericsson discloses all the limitation of claim 19.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the least one measurement-based event comprises CondEvent A3, CondEvent A4, or CondEvent A5 (page 12, paragraph 14, "Implementation wise the time window denoted by [t1] and [t2] can be realized by providing the UE with two CHO configurations for the same candidate target cell where the first CHO configuration contains two condition events, a time based condition event [t1] and a measurement condition (A3, A4 or A5)," (i.e., the measurement based on A3, A4, or A5.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 3-9, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEC (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113 bis electronic, R2-2103825) (IDS, 05/29/2024) in view of Ericsson ([Offline-103][NTN] CHO and NTN-TN mobility aspects (Ericsson)_v28_Sequans) in further view of Lenovo et al. (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #115e R2-2107912) (IDS, 07/18/2025).
Regarding Claim 3, NEC in view of Ericsson discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Eriksson further discloses wherein the CHO execution condition includes the time-based event and the at least one measurement-based event, the time-based event corresponds to a time window (page 12, paragraph 14, "Implementation wise the time window denoted by [t1] and [t2] can be realized by providing the UE with two CHO configurations for the same candidate target cell where the first CHO configuration contains two condition events, a time based condition event [t1] and a measurement condition (A3, A4 or A5)," (i.e., the time-based event has a time window.)),
wherein the time window is configured as:
a first threshold for a beginning of the time window and a duration of the time window (page 12, paragraph 1, "An absolute time value and a time offset can be used to describe [t1, t2]. An absolute time value (e.g., UTC) to indicate the start time (i.e., t1) and a time offset to indicate the valid time range allowing the UE to trigger CHO on the associated candidate cell (i.e., the length of time from t1 to t2" and page 18, proposal 8, “a. optional 1: UTC time + duration/timer, e.g. 00:00:01 + 40s”(i.e., a first threshold is the start time “t1” and a duration is the offset.));
or a first threshold for a beginning of the time window and a second threshold associated with an end of the time window (page 12, paragraph 14, "Implementation wise the time window denoted by [t1] and [t2] can be realized by providing the UE with two CHO configurations for the same candidate target cell where the first CHO configuration contains two condition events, a time based condition event [t1] and a measurement condition (A3, A4 or A5)," (i.e., a first threshold is reading as the start time “t1” and a second threshold is reading as “t2” which is the end of time window.)).
However, NEC in view of Ericsson do not explicitly disclose a first threshold for a beginning of the time window and a CHO timer, wherein a length of the CHO timer is equal to a length of the time window.
Lenovo et al. discloses a first threshold for a beginning of the time window and a CHO timer (page 2, section 2 Discussion, proposal 2, "When the UE receives the CHO configuration including a time duration condition, UE starts the first timer T1. When the first timer T1 expires, the UE starts the timer T2" (i.e., Lenovo discloses two timers, T2 is the start of time window and is the CHO timer.)),
wherein a length of the CHO timer is equal to a length of the time window (page 2, section 2 Discussion, proposal 3, "The UE can perform CHO when T2 is running if only time-based condition is configured for this candidate cell" (i.e., the “T2” is the CHO timer which is equal to the time window.));
NEC in view of Ericsson and Lenovo et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are solving problems of CHO in NTN network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NEC to implement the of UE of Lenovo et al. as two timers in order to insure the handover does not happen too early before the satellite is properly ready and to have a timer that is dedicated to a CHO timer such as “T2” in order to maximize the chances of a successful handover (Lenovo et al., page 3, section 2 Discussion, paragraph above proposal 7, It was agreed in IRAN2…It is natural that timer-based condition together with A4 condition also can be configured to UE.”).
Regarding Claim 4, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Ericsson further discloses wherein, when the time window is configured as the first threshold and the duration, the time-based event further comprises an entry condition (page 6, paragraph above proposal 3, “Another aspect of the event definition is the entry”),
wherein: the entry condition for the time-based event is an inequality that a current time is greater than the first threshold and the current time is less than the first threshold plus a configured duration value (page 12, paragraph 1, "An absolute time value and a time offset can be used to describe [t1, t2]. An absolute time value (e.g., UTC) to indicate the start time (i.e., t1) and a time offset to indicate the valid time range allowing the UE to trigger CHO on the associated candidate cell (i.e., the length of time from t1 to t2"(i.e., inequality is implied as range between “[t1, t2]” and “a time offset” is reading on plus a configured duration value.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 5, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Ericsson further discloses wherein, when the time window is configured as the first threshold and the duration, the time-based event further comprises a leaving condition (page 6, paragraph above proposal 3, “Another aspect of the event definition is the entry and leaving conditions”),
wherein: the leaving condition for the time-based event is an inequality that a current time is (page 15, vivo, “If the current time is in the time duration [t1,t2] and other conditions are fulfilled (e.g., RSRP-based condition), the UE is allowed to trigger CHO on the candidate cell. If other conditions are not fulfilled, the UE is not allowed to trigger CHO on the candidate cell even if the T2 is reached. So, our understanding on T2 is that “the UE is only allowed to perform CHO on the associated candidate cell within [t1,t2] interval is reached. When t2 is reached (i.e. at t2) and after t2, the UE is not allowed to perform CHO on the associated candidate cell anymore.”” and page 15, vivo, paragraph 2, “…We assume it means that the UE shall release the related CHO configuration,” (i.e., leaving condition is reading as the associated candidate cell is not valid since its after “t2”.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 6, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Ericsson further discloses wherein, when the time window is configured as the first threshold and the second threshold, the time-based event further comprises an entry condition (page 6, paragraph above proposal 3, “Another aspect of the event definition is the entry”),
wherein: the entry condition for the time-based event is an inequality that a current time is greater than the first threshold and the current time is less than the second threshold (page 15, vivo, paragraph 1, "If the current time is in the time duration [t1,t2] and other conditions are fulfilled (e.g., RSRP-based condition), the UE is allowed to trigger CHO on the candidate cell." (i.e., discloses an inequality that the CHO happens during the inequality of [t1, t2])).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 7, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Ericsson further discloses wherein, when the time window is configured as the first threshold and the second threshold, the time-based event further comprises a leaving condition, wherein: the leaving condition for the time-based event is an inequality that a current time is (page 6, paragraph above proposal 3, “Another aspect of the event definition is the entry and leaving conditions” and page 15, vivo, “If the current time is in the time duration [t1,t2] and other conditions are fulfilled (e.g., RSRP-based condition), the UE is allowed to trigger CHO on the candidate cell. If other conditions are not fulfilled, the UE is not allowed to trigger CHO on the candidate cell even if the T2 is reached. So, our understanding on T2 is that “the UE is only allowed to perform CHO on the associated candidate cell within [t1,t2] interval is reached. When t2 is reached (i.e. at t2) and after t2, the UE is not allowed to perform CHO on the associated candidate cell anymore.””).
Lenovo et al. further discloses wherein, when the time window is configured as the first threshold and the second threshold, the time-based event further comprises a leaving condition, wherein: the leaving condition for the time-based event is an inequality that a current time is less than the first threshold (page 2, section 2, paragraph 6, "For joint condition of timer-based condition and measurement-based condition, the UE will receive the configuration of time duration [t1 t2] and measurement-based condition. The t1 is the time after which the UE is allowed to execute CHO to the candidate target cell. It seems unnecessary for the UE to evaluate measurement-based condition. The reason is that CHO will not be triggered even the measurement-based condition is met before 'tl' (=before timer T1 expiry). Therefore, UE evaluates whether the measurement-based condition is met within TTT or not in the configured time range. UE starts to evaluate the measurement-based condition when the first timer T1 expires and the second timer T2 is running." (i.e., discloses a leaving condition as the timer is now before start of "T2" start timer as the UE is currently in "T1" timer.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Lenovo et al. further discloses wherein, when the time window is configured as the first threshold for the beginning of time window and the CHO timer, the at least oneprocessor is further configured to cause the UE to: (page 2, section 2 Discussion, proposal 2, "When the UE receives the CHO configuration including a time duration condition, UE starts the first timer T1. When the first timer T1 expires, the UE starts the timer T2" and page 2, section 2 Discussion, proposal 3, "The UE can perform CHO when T2 is running if only time-based condition is configured for this candidate cell"(i.e., beginning of time window and less than the end of the time window is referring to "T2" as the "CHO when T2 is running". A time point is implied as it’s the time within "T2".)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 9, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 8.
Ericsson further discloses wherein, when the time point of receiving the first threshold is greater than the first threshold of the beginning of the time window, and less than the end of the time window, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to set a length of the CHO timer as (page 11, section 3. CHO time trigger definition, paragraph 2, "[t1] would then represent the earliest point in time when the UE can perform CHO to the candidate target cell. This is does not have to be same as timing information that was agreed at the RAN2#113bis meeting. The timing information may e.g. say when cell is available to know when earliest the cell can be measured and the [t1] may be the earliest time when to perform HO to that candidate target cell given other conditions are fulfilled." and page 11, section 3. CHO time trigger definition, paragraph 3, "[t2] represent the end of the time window, i.e. the latest point in time when the UE shall perform CHO to the candidate target cell." (i.e., the UE is already configuring the CHO to be performed anytime between t1 and t2, t1 is the earliest the UE can perform CHO, and thus configuring the rest of the CHO of the time window.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 11, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Ericsson further discloses wherein, when the time window is configured as the first threshold for the beginning of the time window and the duration of the time window (page 12, paragraph 1, "An absolute time value and a time offset can be used to describe [t1, t2]. An absolute time value (e.g., UTC) to indicate the start time (i.e., t1) and a time offset to indicate the valid time range allowing the UE to trigger CHO on the associated candidate cell (i.e., the length of time from t1 to t2" and page 18, proposal 8, “a. optional 1: UTC time + duration/timer, e.g. 00:00:01 + 40s”(i.e., a first threshold is the start time “t1” and a duration is the offset.),
or the time window is configured as the first threshold for the beginning of the time window and the second threshold associated with the end of the time window (page 12, paragraph 14, "Implementation wise the time window denoted by [t1] and [t2] can be realized by providing the UE with two CHO configurations for the same candidate target cell where the first CHO configuration contains two condition events, a time based condition event [t1] and a measurement condition (A3, A4 or A5)," (i.e., a first threshold is reading as the start time “t1” and a second threshold is reading as “t2” which is the end of time window.)),
the time-based event further comprises an entry condition (page 6, paragraph above proposal 3, “Another aspect of the event definition is the entry”)
or a leaving condition (page 6, paragraph above proposal 3, “Another aspect of the event definition is the entry and leaving conditions”).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 12, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 11.
Ericsson further discloses wherein, when the time window is configured as the first threshold for the beginning of time window and the duration of the time window, to evaluate whether the time-based event is fulfilled, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: determine the time-based event is fulfilled in response to the fact that when the entry condition is fulfilled (page 15, ZTE, bullet 2, "If all the other conditions configured for this candidate target cell is fulfilled within [t1,t2], UE will perform CHO but if other conditions are not fulfilled within [t1,t2], UE will not perform CHO and this candidate cell becomes unavailable after t2 and UE will not consider it anymore." (i.e., entry condition referring to all the condition is filled within the “[t1, t2]”.))
or the leaving condition is not fulfilled (page 15, MediaTek, "We see T2 as optional. If configured, then CHO needs to be performed between T1 and T2 and not outside this window." and page 15, vivo, first paragraph, "When t2 is reached (i.e. at t2) and after t2, the UE is not allowed to perform CHO on the associated candidate cell anymore.” There is no such a requirement that at T2 the UE shall/must perform CHO anyway." (i.e., the time0based event is not fulfilled as its after “t2” which the leaving condition.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 13, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: in response to the fact that when a time point of receiving the first threshold is greater than the first threshold, set the duration as or and a configured duration value (page 11, section 3. CHO time trigger definition, paragraph 2, "[t1] would then represent the earliest point in time when the UE can perform CHO to the candidate target cell. This is does not have to be same as timing information that was agreed at the RAN2#113bis meeting. The timing information may e.g. say when cell is available to know when earliest the cell can be measured and the [t1] may be the earliest time when to perform HO to that candidate target cell given other conditions are fulfilled." and page 11, section 3. CHO time trigger definition, paragraph 3, "[t2] represent the end of the time window, i.e. the latest point in time when the UE shall perform CHO to the candidate target cell." (i.e., the UE is already configuring the CHO to be performed anytime between t1 and t2, t1 is the earliest the UE can perform CHO, and thus configuring the rest of the CHO of the time window.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 17, which is similar in scope to claim 3, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEC (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113 bis electronic, R2-2103825) (IDS, 05/29/2024) in view of Ericsson ([Offline-103][NTN] CHO and NTN-TN mobility aspects (Ericsson)_v28_Sequans) in view of Lenovo et al. (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #115e R2-2107912) (IDS, 07/18/2025) in further view of HU (US-20220338074-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Ericsson further discloses wherein, when the time window is configured as the first threshold for the beginning of the time window and the CHO timer, the time point of receiving the first threshold is greater than the first threshold of the time window(page 15, zte, bullet 2, “If all the other conditions configured for this candidate target cell is fulfilled within [t1,t2], UE will perform CHO but if other conditions are not fulfilled within [t1,t2], UE will not perform CHO and this candidate cell becomes unavailable after t2 and UE will not consider it anymore.” and page 15, vivo, paragraph 1, "When t2 is reached (i.e. at t2) and after t2, the UE is not allowed to perform CHO on the associated candidate cell anymore.” There is no such a requirement that at T2 the UE shall/must perform CHO anyway." (i.e., as it stands t1 < t2, and when its t2 is after t1, and when time point is after t2 the UE will not perform CHO. As stated in Ericsson the timer is not started because in order to execute CHO the UE needs to perform the measurement within the given time period, as disclosed in claim 1 “CHO execution configuration” thus when the time is after T2 the UE is not going to initiate timer again in order to perform CHO.)),
However, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. does not disclose the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: not start the CHO timer or start the CHO timer and immediately stop the CHO timer.
HU discloses not starting start the CHO timer (paragraph [0111], "An indication of 1 bit in the assistance message may be provided. For example, 1 indicates to start the timer and 0 indicates to stop the timer. The timer corresponding to the measurement can be considered as the T331 timer. If the assistance message indicates 0, the T331 timer may not be started, and accordingly, the terminal device does not perform the measurement…" (i.e., its known in the art to not start the timer.)),
or start the CHO timer and immediately stop the CHO timer (paragraph [0111], "…If the terminal device has started the measurement and started the corresponding T331 timer, sending the assistance message (for example, sending the assistance message through DCI) can be regarded as instructing the terminal device to stop the timer immediately and end the measurement…" (i.e., its known in the art to start a timer and to end the timer immediately.)).
NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. and HU considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Handoff or reselecting arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NEC to implement the system of HU of not starting the timer or starting and immediately stopping the timer in order to stop the measurement in order to save power (HU, paragraph [0024], “In the process of measurement and reporting, the terminal device measures corresponding reference signals at the corresponding measurement frequencies according to a measurement configuration configured by the network device for the terminal device, and then the terminal device reports measurement results. However, in this measurement processing method, it is impossible to reduce a power consumption of the terminal device caused by measurement and reporting without affecting a measurement effect or communication effect, and an energy-saving effect of terminal cannot be guaranteed.” and paragraph [0054], “In the solution provided by the embodiment, the network device utilizes the assistance message to enable the terminal device to realize “early measurement established through fast carrier aggregation (CA) or dual connectivity (DC)” or “early measurement reporting (EMR) of early switching measurement” more quickly and with more power saving.”).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEC (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113 bis electronic, R2-2103825) (IDS, 05/29/2024) in view of Ericsson ([Offline-103][NTN] CHO and NTN-TN mobility aspects (Ericsson)_v28_Sequans) in further view of Lenovo et al. (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #115e R2-2107912) (IDS, 07/18/2025) in further view of LEE (US-20250142440-A1).
Regarding Claim 14, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
Ericsson further discloses wherein, when the time point of receiving the first threshold is greater than the first threshold, the at last one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: ignore the CHO execution condition (page 15, vivo, paragraph 1, "When t2 is reached (i.e. at t2) and after t2, the UE is not allowed to perform CHO on the associated candidate cell anymore.” There is no such a requirement that at T2 the UE shall/must perform CHO anyway." (i.e., as it stands t1 < t2, and when its t2 is after t1, and when time point is after t2 the UE will not perform CHO or "ignore the CHO execution".)).
However, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. do not disclose discard the CHO execution condition and keep the CHO configuration.
LEE discloses discard the CHO execution condition and keep the CHO configuration (paragraph [0354], Fig.15, "In step S1505, at the time point t2, the UE may stop the CHO evaluation of the cell. To stop the CHO evaluation at t2, the UE may discard the CHO execution condition for which the time duration [t1, t2] is configured. However, the UE may keep the configuration of the cell in the CHO candidate cell list." (i.e., discarding the execution condition but keep the CHO configuration.)).
NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. and LEE are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are solving problems of CHO in NTN network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NEC to implement the of UE of LEE to have the UE remove CHO execution condition because it is no longer valid and this saves storage space and to keep CHO configuration as the information can be used for radio link failure (RLF) recovery which has a shorter delay than CHO (LEE, paragraph [0406], “For example, while the wireless device is allowed to perform CHO to a CHO candidate cell only during [t1, t2], the wireless device may not discard the cell from the CHO configuration. The wireless device may perform CHO to the cell for the RLF recovery instead of triggering RRC re-establishment procedure which requires much longer delay than CHO.”).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEC (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113 bis electronic, R2-2103825) (IDS, 05/29/2024) in view of Ericsson ([Offline-103][NTN] CHO and NTN-TN mobility aspects (Ericsson)_v28_Sequans) in further view of Lenovo et al. (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #115e R2-2107912) (IDS, 07/18/2025) in further view of ZTE et al. (3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #110e, R3-206454).
Regarding Claim 15, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 3.
However, NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. do not disclose wherein, when the time point of receiving the first threshold is greater than the first threshold, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit an indication that the time point is greater than the first threshold.
ZTE et al. discloses wherein, when the time point of receiving the first threshold is greater than the first threshold, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit an indication that the time point is greater than the first threshold (page 2, proposal 1, "UE reports the time elapsed since receiving the CHO configuration until the CHO execution to gNB regardless CHO success or failure" and proposal 2, "UE reports the time elapsed since CHO execution until connection failure." (i.e., UE reporting time elapsed since CHO execution in proposal 2, and the CHO execution is reading as the time point that is greater than the first threshold.)).
NEC in view of Ericsson in further view of Lenovo et al. and ZTE et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are solving problems of CHO in NTN network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NEC to implement the of UE of ZTE et al. to have the UE report the time elapsed of CHO execution until failure in order provide CHO configuration that is not too early or too late for the UE therefor increasing the reliability of CHO (ZTE et al., page 2, section 2 Discussion, lines 6-7, “The time elapsed since receiving the CHO configuration until the CHO execution is useful for the source gNB to decide whether CHO configuration is provided too early or too late to the UE.” and page 2, section 2 Discussion, paragraph above proposal 2, “In MRO for traditional handover, the handover reported timer (TimeConnFailure) is very important for failure types detection in MRO. The handover reported time (TimeConnFailure) to indicate the time elapsed since the last HO initialization until connection failure. For example, for too early handover, the time is smaller than the configured time (e.g. Tstore_UE_cntxt). For CHO, the time should be from CHO execution until connection failure. It is reasonable to introduce a new time information, to indicate the time elapsed since the CHO execution until connection failure.”).
Conclusion
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 Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
