CTNF 18/795,655 CTNF 94973 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0338089) in view of Da Silva (US 2023/0209425) . Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses: A method performed by a User Equipment (UE) for mobility management, the method comprising: receiving, from a network, a first conditional configuration for a candidate target Primary Cell (PCell), the first conditional configuration indicating an execution condition; at least because Kim teaches that a UE in an NR system receives a conditional handover (CHO) command from the network identifying candidate target cells together with respective handover execution conditions (Kim, para. [0207] " a UE receives a CHO command prior to actual handover timing so as to increase the probability of successful handover. The CHO command includes information indicating CHO execution condition(s) and target cell configuration(s) each corresponding to different target cell(s) "). Further, Kim discloses: determining whether the execution condition is satisfied; at least because Kim teaches that, after receiving the CHO command, the UE evaluates the configured CHO execution condition against measured cell quality (Kim, para. [0207] " After receiving CHO command, the UE evaluates CHO execution condition "). Moreover, Kim discloses: in response to determining that the execution condition is satisfied, applying the first conditional configuration to switch to the candidate target PCell; and at least because Kim teaches that, when at least one target cell satisfies the CHO execution condition, the UE applies the corresponding target cell configuration to access that target cell (Kim, para. [0207] " If at least one target cell satisfies the CHO execution condition, the UE initiates access to the target cell using the target cell configuration for the target cell "). With respect to claim 1, even though Kim in para. [005] teaches that the CHO framework is generic and is extended to other types of conditional reconfiguration including conditional PSCell addition or change, Kim does not explicitly disclose that post-handover disposition of leftover preparatory commands depends on their mutual linkage: in response to switching to the candidate target PCell, determining whether to release a second conditional configuration, which has been stored at the UE prior to switching to the candidate target PCell, based on whether the second conditional configuration is associated with the first conditional configuration. Nevertheless, Kim in view of Da Silva teaches that, after a conditional reconfiguration procedure has been carried out at the UE, the UE evaluates each stored conditional reconfiguration against an indication communicated for that stored configuration (i.e., “ based on whether the second conditional configuration is associated with the first conditional configuration ” as claimed) and selectively keeps or releases that stored configuration based on the indication (Da Silva, para. [0127] " including CPC and/or CPA configuration(s) indicating the UE to keep, modify and/or release CPC and/or CPA configuration(s) "). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kim in view of Da Silva in order to ensure that the UE's stored conditional reconfigurations are released or retained according to whether each is associated with the applied first conditional configuration, so that conditional reconfigurations whose anchoring procedure has already completed are purged while those still associated with an ongoing procedure are retained, avoiding redundant evaluation and signaling overhead at the UE. Doing so results in efficient lifecycle management of conditional reconfiguration state at the UE, ensuring that conditional reconfigurations are retained only while operatively associated with an ongoing cell-change procedure and released once that anchoring procedure has completed, thereby reducing unnecessary measurement and evaluation overhead at the UE. Regarding claim 2, although Kim in para. [0207] teaches that the UE keeps the received conditional command under evaluation after it is delivered ahead of the actual handover, Kim does not explicitly disclose that keep-or-discard handling of leftover preparatory commands follows their mutual linkage: The method of claim 1, further comprising: retaining, after switching to the candidate target PCell, the second conditional configuration in response to determining that the second conditional configuration is associated with the first conditional configuration; and releasing, after switching to the candidate target PCell, the second conditional configuration in response to determining that the second conditional configuration is not associated with the first conditional configuration. Nonetheless, Kim in view of Da Silva teaches that the reconfiguration message carries, for the previously stored CPC or CPA configurations, an indication that selectively directs the UE to keep, modify, or release each of them (Da Silva, para. [0127] " including CPC and/or CPA configuration(s) indicating the UE to keep, modify and/or release CPC and/or CPA configuration(s) "). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kim in view of Da Silva in order to keep only those stored conditional configurations that remain tied to the completed cell change and to release the others, conserving UE memory and avoiding continued evaluation of configurations that are no longer applicable. Regarding claim 3, even though Kim in para. [005] teaches that the conditional framework extends beyond handover to conditional PSCell addition or change in dual-connectivity, Kim does not explicitly disclose that the leftover preparatory command pertains to a dual-connectivity counterpart: The method of claim 1, wherein the second conditional configuration is associated with a candidate target Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell). Even so, Kim in view of Da Silva teaches that the stored configurations subject to the keep-or-release indication are CPC and CPA configurations, which are directed to a candidate PSCell (Da Silva, para. [0127] " indicating the UE to keep, modify and/or release CPC and/or CPA configuration(s) "). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kim in view of Da Silva in order to apply the same post-handover retention logic to conditional PSCell preparations stored alongside the PCell change, so that dual-connectivity preparations remain usable when still relevant and are removed once obsolete. Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein applying the first conditional configuration to switch to the candidate target PCell comprises: performing a Random Access (RA) procedure based on the first conditional configuration. at least because Kim teaches that the RRC reconfiguration message conveying the target-cell configuration includes the information required for the UE's random-access procedure at the target cell (Kim, para. [0185] " the information required for contention-based and contention-free random access can be included in the RRCReconfiguration message "). Regarding claim 5, the claim recites: A User Equipment (UE) for mobility management, 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: receive, from a network, a first conditional configuration for a candidate target Primary Cell (PCell), the first conditional configuration indicating an execution condition; determine whether the execution condition is satisfied; in response to determining that the execution condition is satisfied, apply the first conditional configuration to switch to the candidate target PCell; and in response to switching to the candidate target PCell, determine whether to release a second conditional configuration, which has been stored at the UE prior to switching to the candidate target PCell, based on whether the second conditional configuration is associated with the first conditional configuration. Claim 5 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 6, the claim recites: The UE of claim 5, wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the UE to: retain, after switching to the candidate target PCell, the second conditional configuration in response to determining that the second conditional configuration is associated with the first conditional configuration; and release, after switching to the candidate target PCell, the second conditional configuration in response to determining that the second conditional configuration is not associated with the first conditional configuration. Claim 6 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 7, the claim recites: The UE of claim 5, wherein the second conditional configuration is associated with a candidate target Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell). Claim 7 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 8, the claim recites: The UE of claim 5, wherein applying the first conditional configuration to switch to the candidate target PCell comprises: performing a Random Access (RA) procedure based on the first conditional configuration. Claim 8 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST 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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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. /CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478 /JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/795,655 Page 2 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/795,655 Page 3 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/795,655 Page 4 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/795,655 Page 5 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/795,655 Page 6 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/795,655 Page 7 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/795,655 Page 8 Art Unit: 2478
Prosecution Insights