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 Amendment
The Amendment filed June 26, 2026 has been entered. Prior to the Amendment, claims 1-8 were pending in the application. By the Amendment, claims 5-7 were amended, and no claim was cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-8 remain pending and ready for examination.
Applicant’s claim amendment and remarks were carefully and fully considered, but they were unpersuasive. The same grounds of rejection presented in the previous Office Action is maintained. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over 3GPPTS37.340V171 in view of 3GPPTS38.331V172.
Regarding claim 1, 3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches a method (See, p. 108, §10.19.2 MR-DC with 5GC, et seq.) performed by a user equipment (UE) (p. 108, Fig. 10.19.2-1, “UE”) for a conditional handover (CHO) (See, e.g., p. 105, Heading: “10.19 Conditional Handover with Secondary Node”) in a multi-radio access technology (RAT) dual connectivity (MR-DC) network (See, e.g., p. 108, Heading: “10.19.2 MR-DC with 5GC”), the method comprising:
receiving a message (See, e.g., Fig. 10.19.2-1, step 5, “RRC reconfiguration”) comprising an execution condition for a primary cell (PCell) (See, Fig. 10.19.2-1, “Target MN;” and p. 109, the last paragraph (numbered “5”), “the CHO configuration, i.e. a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages and associated execution conditions, in which each RRC reconfiguration* message contains an MCG configuration3”), a first secondary cell group (SCG) configuration (See, p. 109, the last paragraph (numbered “5”), “5. The source MN sends an RRC reconfiguration message to the UE, including the CHO configuration, i.e. a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages and associated execution conditions, in which each RRC reconfiguration* message contains an MCG configuration and possibly an SCG configuration4 in the RRC reconfiguration** message received from the candidate SN in step 3;” and p. 109, numbered paragraph 3 (which is the “step 3” referenced in the immediately preceding cited portion), “3. The (candidate) SN replies with the SN Addition Request Acknowledge message. The (candidate) SN may include the indication of the full or delta RRC configuration.” See, also, Fig. 10.19.2-1 showing the RRC signaling, “3” from both the “(Target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN” to the “Target MN”. Accordingly, the CHO configuration includes a list of full or delta RRC configuration for each of the “(Target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN,” i.e., their respective SCG cinfigurations.) for a first primary secondary cell (PSCell) (Fig. 10.19.2-1, “(Target) SN”), an execution condition for the first PSCell (p. 109, the last paragraph (numbered “5”), “the CHO configuration, i.e. a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages and associated execution conditions, in which each RRC reconfiguration* message contains … an SCG configuration”), and a second SCG configuration for a second PSCell (See, Fig. 10.19.2-1, “Other potential target SN;” and p. 109, numbered paragraphs 3 and 5 discussed above);
storing the first SCG configuration and the second SCG configuration (See, Page 110, the first paragraph, “6. The UE applies the RRC reconfiguration message received in step 5, stores the CHO configuration and replies to the MN with an RRC reconfiguration complete message.”);
determining whether the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied (See, p. 110, numbered paragraph 7/8, “after receiving CHO configuration, and starts evaluating the CHO execution condition for the candidate cell(s). If at least one CHO candidate cell satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition”.) and whether the execution condition for the first PSCell is satisfied (See, p. 110, numbered paragraph 7/8, “after receiving CHO configuration, and starts evaluating the CHO execution condition for the candidate cell(s). If at least one CHO candidate cell satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition”. See, p. 108, “The Conditional Handover with Secondary Node procedure is used for configuration and execution of CHO with SN. This procedure includes the cases where the SN is kept, changed or added.” In order to change or add, i.e., select a new, SN (the PSCell), an evaluation of the execution condition for the new candidate PSCell(s) is necessary.);
applying the first SCG configuration after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is satisfied (See, Fig. 10.19.2-1, steps 7 - 10; p. 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8, “If at least one CHO candidate cell satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition, the UE detaches from the source MN, applies the stored corresponding configuration for that selected candidate cell, synchronises to that candidate cell and completes the RRC handover procedure by sending RRC reconfiguration complete* message to the target M. If the stored configuration for the selected candidate cell includes an SCG configuration, the UE includes an embedded SN RRCReconfigurationComplete** message for the target SN.;” and p. 110, numbered paragraph 9, “the UE synchronizes to the (target) SN.”).
3GPPTS37.340V17, while suggesting evaluating a plurality of target SNs (i.e., the “(target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN,” See, Fig. 10.19.2-1; and p. 110, numbered paragraph 7/8, “evaluating the CHO execution condition for the candidate cell(s), i.e., plural cells.), however, fails to teach explicitly the recited step of applying the second SCG configuration after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is not satisfied.
3GPPTS38.331V17 teaches the procedural steps a UE should follow upon receipt of a “RRC Reconfiguration” message (See, 3GPPTS37.340V17, Page 109, numbered paragraph 5, “the CHO configuration, i.e. a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages;” and 3GPPTS38.331V17, Page 76, §5.3.5.3, “The UE shall perform the following actions upon reception of the RRCReconfiguration, or upon execution of the conditional reconfiguration (CHO, CPA or CPC);” ; page 77, first line, “1> if the RRCReconfiguration includes the secondaryCellGroup:;” and Page 116, §5.3.5.13, et seq. For example, the paragraph bridging Pp. 116 and 117, “In NR-DC, the UE may receive two independent conditionalReconfiguration:
- a conditionalReconfiguration associated with MCG, that is included in the RRCReconfiguration message received via SRB1; and
- a conditionalReconfiguration, associated with SCG, that is included in the RRCReconfiguration message received via SRB3, or, alternatively, included within a RRCReconfiguration message embedded in a RRCReconfiguration message received via SRB1), and more particularly teaches, the recited step of applying the second SCG configuration after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is not satisfied (See, 3GPPTS38.331V17, §5.3.5.13.4 starting on p. 118, “The UE shall: ……. 2> if condExecutionCondSCG is configured:
3> in the remainder of the procedure, consider each measId indicated in the condExecutionCondSCG as a measId in the VarMeasConfig associated with the SCG measConfig.” And, teaches the two possible results of the measId evaluation, i.e., “4> consider the event associated to that measId to be fulfilled” (p. 118); and “4> consider the event associated to that measId to be not fulfilled” (p. 119), which teaching, when viewed in combination with the teachings of the 3GPPTS37.340V17 (at p. 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8, “appl[ying] the stored corresponding configuration for that selected candidate cell,” “[i]f at least one CHO candidate cell satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition), clearly suggests an evaluation of a plural SCG configurations, and, based on which, selecting a candidate cell that fulfills the execution condition over another one that does not. And, based on Fig. 10.19.2-1 and page 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8 of the 3GPPTS37.340V17, such evaluation and selection process of the PCell and PSCell would precede the step 7, “Random Access Procedure” shown in the figure. That is, upon the selection of the PCell (target MN), selecting a PSCell (target SN) that satisfies the corresponding execution condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of 3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 when implementing a UE in order for such UE to be compliant with the 5G NR networks as the two technical specification are intended to together form the relevant specifications for certain aspects of the 5G NR networks (See, e.g., 3GPPTS37.340V17 (Page 7, §1 and [4]; 3GPPTS38.331V17 (Page 24, §1 and Page 25, [41]).
Regarding claim 2/1, 3GPPTS37.340V17 in view of 3GPPTS38.331V17 teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches further that the method further comprising:
connecting, based on the first SCG configuration, to the first PSCell after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is satisfied (See, 3GPPTS37.340V17, Fig. 10.19.2-1, step 9; and p. 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8 and 9, “the UE synchronizes to the (target) SN”).
Regarding claim 3/1, 3GPPTS37.340V17 in view of 3GPPTS38.331V17 teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches further that the method further comprising
connecting, based on the second SCG configuration, to the second PSCell after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is not satisfied (See, 3GPPTS37.340V17, Fig. 10.19.2-1, step 9; and Page 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8 and 9, “the UE synchronizes to the (target) SN.” See, also the above discussion relating to the selection of the PSCell in connection with claim 1).
Regarding claim 4/1, 3GPPTS37.340V17 in view of 3GPPTS38.331V17 teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches further that receiving the message comprises receiving the message via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (See, e.g., 3GPPTS37.340V17, Fig. 10.19.2-1, step 5, “RRC reconfiguration”).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over 3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 in further view of Min et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US2025/0142439) (“Min”).
Regarding claim 5, 3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 10.19.2-1, “UE”) for a conditional handover (CHO) (See, e.g., Page 105, Heading: “10.19 Conditional Handover with Secondary Node”) in a multi-radio access technology (RAT) dual connectivity (MR-DC) network (See, e.g., Page 108, Heading: “10.19.2 MR-DC with 5GC”), the UE being configured to
receive a message (See, e.g., Fig. 10.19.2-1, step 5, “RRC reconfiguration”) comprising an execution condition for a primary cell (PCell) (See, Fig. 10.19.2-1, “Target MN;” and p. 109, the last paragraph (numbered “5”), “the CHO configuration, i.e. a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages and associated execution conditions, in which each RRC reconfiguration* message contains an MCG configuration5”), a first secondary cell group (SCG) configuration (See, p. 109, the last paragraph (numbered “5”), “5. The source MN sends an RRC reconfiguration message to the UE, including the CHO configuration, i.e. a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages and associated execution conditions, in which each RRC reconfiguration* message contains an MCG configuration and possibly an SCG configuration6 in the RRC reconfiguration** message received from the candidate SN in step 3;” and p. 109, numbered paragraph 3 (which is the “step 3” referenced in the immediately preceding cited portion), “3. The (candidate) SN replies with the SN Addition Request Acknowledge message. The (candidate) SN may include the indication of the full or delta RRC configuration.” See, also, Fig. 10.19.2-1 showing the RRC signaling, “3” from both the “(Target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN” to the “Target MN”. Accordingly, the CHO configuration includes a list of full or delta RRC configuration for each of the “(Target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN,” i.e., their respective SCG configurations.) for a first primary secondary cell (PSCell) (Fig. 10.19.2-1, “(Target) SN”), an execution condition for the first PSCell (p. 109, the last paragraph (numbered “5”), “the CHO configuration, i.e. a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages and associated execution conditions, in which each RRC reconfiguration* message contains … an SCG configuration”), and a second SCG configuration for a second PSCell (See, Fig. 10.19.2-1, “Other potential target SN;” and p. 109, numbered paragraphs 3 and 5 discussed above);
store the first SCG configuration and the second SCG configuration (See, Page 110, the first paragraph, “6. The UE applies the RRC reconfiguration message received in step 5, stores the CHO configuration and replies to the MN with an RRC reconfiguration complete message.”);
determine whether the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied (See, p. 110, numbered paragraph 7/8, “after receiving CHO configuration, and starts evaluating the CHO execution condition for the candidate cell(s). If at least one CHO candidate cell satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition”.) and whether the execution condition for the first PSCell is satisfied (See, p. 110, numbered paragraph 7/8, “after receiving CHO configuration, and starts evaluating the CHO execution condition for the candidate cell(s). If at least one CHO candidate cell satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition”. See, p. 108, “The Conditional Handover with Secondary Node procedure is used for configuration and execution of CHO with SN. This procedure includes the cases where the SN is kept, changed or added.” In order to change or add, i.e., select a new, SN (the PSCell), an evaluation of the execution condition for the new candidate PSCell(s) is necessary.);
apply the first SCG configuration after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is satisfied (See, Fig. 10.19.2-1, steps 7 - 10; p. 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8, “If at least one CHO candidate cell satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition, the UE detaches from the source MN, applies the stored corresponding configuration for that selected candidate cell, synchronises to that candidate cell and completes the RRC handover procedure by sending RRC reconfiguration complete* message to the target M. If the stored configuration for the selected candidate cell includes an SCG configuration, the UE includes an embedded SN RRCReconfigurationComplete** message for the target SN.;” and p. 110, numbered paragraph 9, “the UE synchronizes to the (target) SN.”).
3GPPTS37.340V17, while suggesting evaluating a plurality of target SNs (i.e., the “(target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN,” See, Fig. 10.19.2-1; and p. 110, numbered paragraph 7/8, “evaluating the CHO execution condition for the candidate cell(s), i.e., plural cells.), however, fails to teach explicitly applying the second SCG configuration after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is not satisfied.
3GPPTS38.331V17 teaches the procedural steps a UE should follow upon receipt of a “RRC Reconfiguration” message (See, 3GPPTS37.340V17, Page 109, numbered paragraph 5, “the CHO configuration, i.e. a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages;” and 3GPPTS38.331V17, Page 76, §5.3.5.3, “The UE shall perform the following actions upon reception of the RRCReconfiguration, or upon execution of the conditional reconfiguration (CHO, CPA or CPC);” ; page 77, first line, “1> if the RRCReconfiguration includes the secondaryCellGroup:;” and Page 116, §5.3.5.13, et seq. For example, the paragraph bridging Pp. 116 and 117, “In NR-DC, the UE may receive two independent conditionalReconfiguration:
- a conditionalReconfiguration associated with MCG, that is included in the RRCReconfiguration message received via SRB1; and
- a conditionalReconfiguration, associated with SCG, that is included in the RRCReconfiguration message received via SRB3, or, alternatively, included within a RRCReconfiguration message embedded in a RRCReconfiguration message received via SRB1), and more particularly teaches, applying the second SCG configuration after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is not satisfied (See, 3GPPTS38.331V17, §5.3.5.13.4 starting on p. 118, “The UE shall: ……. 2> if condExecutionCondSCG is configured:
3> in the remainder of the procedure, consider each measId indicated in the condExecutionCondSCG as a measId in the VarMeasConfig associated with the SCG measConfig.” And, teaches the two possible results of the measId evaluation, i.e., “4> consider the event associated to that measId to be fulfilled” (p. 118); and “4> consider the event associated to that measId to be not fulfilled” (p. 119), which teaching, when viewed in combination with the teachings of the 3GPPTS37.340V17 (at p. 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8, “appl[ying] the stored corresponding configuration for that selected candidate cell,” “[i]f at least one CHO candidate cell satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition), clearly suggests an evaluation of a plural SCG configurations, and, based on which, selecting a candidate cell that fulfills the execution condition over another one that does not. And, based on Fig. 10.19.2-1 and page 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8 of the 3GPPTS37.340V17, such evaluation and selection process of the PCell and PSCell would precede the step 7, “Random Access Procedure” shown in the figure. That is, upon the selection of the PCell (target MN), selecting a PSCell (target SN) that satisfies the corresponding execution condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of 3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 when implementing a UE in order for such UE to be compliant with the 5G NR networks as the two technical specification are intended to together form the relevant specifications for certain aspects of the 5G NR networks (See, e.g., 3GPPTS37.340V17 (Page 7, §1 and [4]; 3GPPTS38.331V17 (Page 24, §1 and Page 25, [41]).
3GPPTS37.340V17 in view of 3GPPTS38.331V17 in combination, however, fails to explicitly teach the UE comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the at least one processor and storing one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to perform the above discussed functional steps.
Min teaches a UE (Figs. 1 and 8, #200, ¶s[0021], [0025] and [0153]) comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 8, #1001, ¶[0158]); and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 3, #102, ¶[0153]) coupled to the at least one processor and storing one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to perform functional steps (See, ¶¶ [0002]-[0003] and [0159]).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of 3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 to incorporate the UE structure taught by Min when implementing a UE in order for such UE to be compliant with the 5G NR networks (See, e.g., Min, ¶¶[0002] , [0003] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 6/5, 3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 in further view of Min teach a UE comprising all elements recited in claim 5 as discussed above.
3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 in further view of Min further teaches that the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (See, Min et al., ¶s[0158] and [0159]), further cause the UE to connect, based on the first SCG configuration, to the first PSCell after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is satisfied (See, 3GPPTS37.340V17, Fig. 10.19.2-1, step 9; and Page 110; and Page 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8 and 9, “the UE synchronizes to the (target) SN”).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of 3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 to incorporate the UE structure taught by Min when implementing a UE in order for such UE to be compliant with the 5G NR networks (See, e.g., Min, ¶s[0002] , [0003] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 7/5, 3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 in further view of Min teach a UE comprising all elements recited in claim 5 as discussed above.
3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 in further view of Min further teaches that the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (See, Min et al., ¶s[0158] and [0159]), further cause the UE to:
connect, based on the second SCG configuration, to the second PSCell after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is not satisfied (See, 3GPPTS37.340V17, Fig. 10.19.2-1, step 9; and Page 110, numbered paragraphs 7/8 and 9, “the UE synchronizes to the (target) SN;” See, also the above discussion relating to the selection of the PSCell in connection with claim 1).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of 3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 to incorporate the UE structure taught by Min when implementing a UE in order for such UE to be compliant with the 5G NR networks (See, e.g., Min, ¶s[0002] , [0003] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 8/5, 3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17 in further view of Min teach a UE comprising all elements recited in claim 5 as discussed above.
3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches further that receiving the message comprises receiving the message via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (See, e.g., 3GPPTS37.340V17, Fig. 10.19.2-1, step 5, “RRC reconfiguration”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: 1) the prior art references relied upon in support of the rejections in the previous Office Action, namely, 3GPPTS37.340V17, allegedly fails to teach the feature of claim 1: 1A) "an execution condition for the first PSCell," see, Amendment at p. 6; and 1B) "determining whether the execution condition for the first PSCell is satisfied," see, id. at 7; 1C) "applying the first SCG configuration after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is satisfied," see, id. at p. 8; 2) the secondary reference relied upon in support of the rejections in the previous Office Action, namely, 3GPPTS38.331V17, allegedly fails to teach "applying the second SCG configuration after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is not satisfied," see, id. at p. 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with each of the above arguments for the following reasons.
As an initial matter, under the principles of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), see, MPEP§2111, where Applicant’s disclosure suggest the applicability of purported invention in a broad range of unlimited variety of communications protocols, see, e.g., the pre-grant publication of the present application (US 2025/0016634) at ¶¶[0023]-[0026], and where the claims themselves makes no express recitations of any relational or hierarchical distinction(s) between a PCell and a PSCell, despite the different labeling of the same, the BRI requires construing each of the PCell and PSCell as simply a CHO candidate cell without importing unrecited distinctions between them. As a result, Applicant’s arguments above are based on dissection(s) between a PCell and a PSCell not actually claimed, are without any persuasion.
Further, with respect to Applicant’s argument 1A), in support of the argument, the Applicant’s asserts that the “execution conditions, as taught by 3GPPTS37.340V17, are associated with the candidate PCell, not with any PSCeII,” emphasis original, id. at p. 6. Applicant, however, offers no factual basis to support such assertion.
On the contrary, 3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches a CHO procedure that includes the “cases where the SN is kept, changed or added,” 3GPPTS37.340V17 at p. 108, 1st para.; the procedure is illustrated with Figure 10.19.2-1, which depicts two candidate MNs, i.e., the “target MN” and the “Other potential target MN,” and two candidate SNs, i.e., the “(target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN,” id. at p. 108, and which also depicts both of the “(target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN” sending the signals “3” to the “target MN;” these signal transmissions are referred to as the “step 3,” and are described to “include the indication of the full or delta RRC configuration,” id. at p. 109, numbered para. 3; the source MN sends a RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE, see, step 5 shown in Figure 10.19.2-1, id. at p. 108; the RRC Reconfiguration message includes “the CHO configuration, i.e. a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages and associated execution conditions, in which each RRC reconfiguration* message contains an MCG configuration and possibly an SCG configuration in the RRC reconfiguration** message received from the candidate SN in step 3, id. at p. 109, last para.; the CHO configuration is stored by the UE, id. at p. 110, numbered para. 6; the “UE maintains connection with the source MN and, if the UE is configured with a PSCell, with the source PSCell, after receiving CHO configuration, and starts evaluating the CHO execution condition for the candidate cell(s), id. at p. 110, numbered para. 7/8; and, based on the evaluation(s), the UE “applies the stored corresponding configuration for that selected candidate cell” that “satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition, id.; and the “UE synchronizes to the (target) SN,” i.e., a newly selected SN, id. at p. 110, numbered para. 9.
Read as a whole, 3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches the target MN receiving RRC Reconfiguration messages from both the “(target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN,” and forwarding the RRC messages and the associated execution conditions as a list (see, id. at p. 109, last para.) to the UE (Figure 10.19.2-1, the signal or step 5).
There is nothing in the above procedure as taught by 3GPPTS37.340V17 that supports Applicant’s assertion that “execution conditions, as taught by 3GPPTS37.340V17, are associated with the candidate PCell, not with any PSCeII,” when the CHO procedure of 3GPPTS37.340V17 clearly contemplates, the change or addition of an SN (3GPPTS37.340V17 at p. 108, 1st para.), and clearly illustrates two candidate SNs (Figure 10.19.2-1, id. at p.108).
Applicant’s argument appears to be based on the reading of 3GPPTS37.340V17, that limits the UE’s evaluation and selection to only a PCell, and that no selection by the UE of a PSCell is made. That is, once the UE selects a PCell, it is the network, not the UE, that ultimately selects the PSCell.
However, such reading is contrary to the procedure taught by 3GPPTS37.340V17 summarized above. Firstly, such reading is inconsistent with the explicit language of the reference. For example, 3GPPTS37.340V17 clearly provides that the UE receives a RRC Reconfiguration message that includes “a list of RRC reconfiguration* messages and associated execution conditions, and these messages and conditions are received from the two candidate SNs, see, 3GPPTS37.340V17 at p. 109, last para.
Absent the contemplation of the UE evaluating, and selecting from, the “(Target) SN” and the “Other potential target SN,” the reason for the target MN receiving a SCG configuration from each of the two candidate SNs, and forwarding the SCG configurations of both to the UE is inexplicable as the UE would have no utility for such information for a cell that is ultimately not selected by the network, i.e., by the target MN. And, because it is the UE, and not the network, that evaluates the candidate cells and selects a new cell based on the evaluation result, there is no reason for the network to exclude the configuration, i.e., a MCG or SCG configuration, or the selection criterion, i.e., the execution condition, of any candidate cell, all of which are necessary for the UE for the evaluation and the selection.
Indeed, such evaluation of (and the execution condition for) a PSCell is described in the secondary reference cited in the previous rejection of the claims. 3GPPTS38.331V17 provides, in relevant part:
§5.3.5.13.4 Conditional reconfiguration evaluation
“The UE shall: …….
2> if condExecutionCondSCG is configured:
3> in the remainder of the procedure, consider each measId indicated in the condExecutionCondSCG as a measId in the VarMeasConfig associated with the SCG measConfig.” See, 3GPPTS38.331V17 at p. 118.
3GPPTS38.331V17 independently confirms that candidate SCGs are also evaluated by a UE against an execution condition, i.e., “condExecutionCondSCG,” and that the above reading by the Applicant is thus erroneous.
Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the reading 3GPPTS37.340V17 Applicant suggests, and respectfully submits that 3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches execution conditions for both the MNs, i.e., PCells, and the SNs, i.e., PSCells.
With respect to Applicant’s argument 1B), in support of the argument, the Applicant’s similarly asserts that the “[t]he "candidate cell" referred to in step 7/8 of 3GPPTS37.340V17 is the candidate PCell that is the target of the conditional handover procedure, not a PSCeII,” emphasis original, id. at p. 7. Applicant, however, offers no factual basis to support such assertion.
This argument, again, appear to be based on the reading of 3GPPTS37.340V17, that UE is allowed to select only a PCell, while the network ultimately selecting the PSCell.
For at least the same reason discussed above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with such reading of 3GPPTS37.340V17, and respectfully remain unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument 1B).
Regarding Applicant’s argument 1C), as this argument also appears to be based on the similar reading of 3GPPTS37.340V17, for at least the same reason discussed above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with such reading of 3GPPTS37.340V17, and respectfully remain unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument 1C).
Finally, with respect to Applicant’s argument 2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Firstly, as for the Applicant’s characterization of 3GPPTS38.331V17 as merely describing “a general mechanism for determining whether a particular measurement event associated with a measId is fulfilled or not fulfilled,” Amendment at p. 10, a brief review of the following portions cited in the previous Office Action may be helpful.
For example, in support of the rejection of claims, the previous Office Action had cited §5.3.5.3 with the heading “Reception of an RRCReconfiguration by the UE,” which further provides just below the heading: “The UE shall perform the following actions upon reception of the RRCReconfiguration, or upon execution of the conditional reconfiguration (CHO, CPA or CPC)”. 3GPPTS38.331V17 at p. 76.
Similarly, in §5.3.5.13 Conditional Reconfiguration (also cited in the previous rejection), 3GPPTS38.331V17 provides:
5.3.5.13.1 General
The network configures the UE with one or more candidate target SpCells in the conditional reconfiguration. The UE evaluates the condition of each configured candidate target SpCell. The UE applies the conditional reconfiguration associated with one of the target SpCells which fulfils associated execution condition. The network provides the configuration parameters for the target SpCell in the ConditionalReconfiguration IE.
In NR-DC, the UE may receive two independent conditionalReconfiguration:
- a conditionalReconfiguration associated with MCG, that is included in the RRCReconfiguration message received via SRB1; and
- a conditionalReconfiguration, associated with SCG, that is included in the RRCReconfiguration message received via SRB3, or, alternatively, included within a RRCReconfiguration message embedded in a RRCReconfiguration message received via SRB1. Id. at Pp. 116-117.
Moreover, §5.3.5.13.4 Conditional reconfiguration evaluation (cited in the previous rejection) provides, in relevant part:
“The UE shall: …….
2> if condExecutionCondSCG is configured:
3> in the remainder of the procedure, consider each measId indicated in the condExecutionCondSCG as a measId in the VarMeasConfig associated with the SCG measConfig.” Id. at p. 118.
First, the above portions of the reference clearly disputes Applicant’s characterization, “a general mechanism for determining whether a particular measurement event associated with a measId is fulfilled or not fulfilled,” unrelated with PSCell evaluation/selection procedure. On the contrary, as demonstrated above, the cited portions relate exactly to the PSCell evaluation/selection procedure described more broadly by 3GPPTS37.340V17, e.g., at p. 110, numbered para. 7/8.
3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches two MCG (PCell) candidates and two SCG (PSCell) candidates. That is, 3GPPTS37.340V17 teaches at least a fist PSCell (i.e., the “(target) SN”) and a second PScell (i.e., “Other potential target SN”), see, 3GPPTS37.340V17, Figure 10.19.2-1, and teaches selecting a candidate cell that “satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition.” Id. at p. 110, numbered para. 7/8.
Further, while may be already implied by the primary reference, 3GPPTS37.340V17, 3GPPTS38.331V17 explicitly teaches the possible two outcome of the evaluation as either “4> consider the event associated to that measId to be fulfilled,” id. at p. 118; or “4> consider the event associated to that measId to be not fulfilled,” id. at p. 119, i.e., in particular, “the execution condition for the first PSCell is not satisfied."
3GPPTS37.340V17 and 3GPPTS38.331V17, in combination, therefore teaches:
"applying the second SCG configuration after determining that the execution condition for the PCell is satisfied and the execution condition for the first PSCell is not satisfied." That is, if the execution condition for the “(target) SN” is “not fulfilled,” selecting the “Other potential target SN” if it “satisfies the corresponding CHO execution condition.”
For at least the above reasons, the Examiner remains unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments, and thus maintains the same grounds of rejections of previous Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
1) Liu et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US2026/0239131) teaches various aspects of the claimed subject matter, e.g., see, Fig. 4 and the description thereof;
2) Karabulut et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US2026/0239154) teaches various aspects of the claimed subject matter, e.g., see, Figs. 4-6 and the description thereof;
3) Bergqvist et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US2025/0310854) teaches various aspects of the claimed subject matter, e.g., see, Fig. 7 and the description thereof;
4) Gürsu et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US2025/0220521) teaches various aspects of the claimed subject matter, e.g., see, Fig. 5 (5A+5B) and the description thereof;
5) Teyeb et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US2024/0397404) teaches various aspects of the claimed subject matter, e.g., see, ¶¶[0212]-[0215]; and
6) Chatterjee et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US2024/0340752) teaches various aspects of the claimed subject matter, e.g., see, Fig. 6 and the description thereof.
No new ground of rejection is presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KI S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Moo R Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
/K.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2418 August 18, 2026
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 3GPP TS 37.340 V17.5.0 (2023-06) Technical Specification 3rd Generation Partnership Project;
Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and NR; Multi-connectivity; Stage 2 (Release 17), Published by 3GPP Organizational Partners, June 2023, Pp. 1-120. Previously made of record.
2 3GPP TS 38.331 V17.5.0 (2023-06) Technical Specification 3rd Generation Partnership Project;
Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17), Published by 3GPP Organizational Partners, June 2023, Pp. 1-1328. Previously made of record.
3 It should be noted that a MCG has a meaning synonymous with a PCell at least when a MCG does not include any SCell, which inclusion is optional according to the Applicant’s own statement (See, Applicant’s disclosure ¶[0045], “Master Cell Group (MCG): In MR-DC, the MCG may include a group of serving cells associated with the master node (MN), including the SpCell (e.g., PCell) and optionally one or more SCells,” Emphasis Added) and according to the 3GPPTS37.340V17 (See, the Definitions section (§3.1) at Page 8, “Master Cell Group: in MR-DC, a group of serving cells associated with the Master Node, comprising of the SpCell (PCell) and optionally one or more SCells,” Emphasis Added).
4 It should also be noted that a SCG has a meaning synonymous with a PSCell at least when a SCG does not include any SCell, which inclusion is optional according to the Applicant’s own statement (See, Applicant’s disclosure ¶[0047], “Secondary Cell Group (SCG): In MR-DC, the SCG may include a group of serving cells associated with the secondary node, including the SpCell (e.g., PSCell) and optionally one or more SCells,” Emphasis Added) and according to the 3GPPTS37.340V17 (See, the Definitions section (§3.1) at Page 9, “Secondary Cell Group: in MR-DC, a group of serving cells associated with the Secondary Node, comprising of the SpCell (PSCell) and optionally one or more SCells,” Emphasis Added). See, also, 3GPPTS38.331V17 at Page 28, “Secondary Cell Group: For a UE configured with dual connectivity, the subset of serving cells comprising of the PSCell and zero or more secondary cells,” Emphasis added.
5 See, footnote 3 above.
6 See, footnote 4 above.
Prosecution Insights