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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 have been amended. Claim 15 has been cancelled. Claims 16-21 have been added. Thus, claims 1-14 and 16-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-12, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0267535).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (Fig. 9), comprising:
at least one memory (902); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (901) and configured to cause the UE to:
store ([Paragraph 372]) failure related information associated with a conditional primary secondary cell group cell (PSCell) addition or change (CPAC) procedure ([Paragraphs 5-11]), wherein the failure related information includes status information associated with one or more of a first triggering event or a second triggering event ([Paragraphs 63, 67]) configured for a candidate PSCell of the CPAC procedure ([Paragraphs 36, 44, 46, 50]); and
transmit the failure related information to a network ([Paragraphs 3, 7]).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang further teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein in response to occurrence of a secondary cell group (SCG) failure, the status information includes at least one of:
information regarding the first triggering event in response to fulfillment of the first triggering event ([Paragraphs 128-129]);
information regarding the second triggering event in response to fulfillment of the second triggering event ([Paragraphs 134-135]); or
time duration between fulfilment timing of the first triggering event and fulfilment timing of the second triggering event ([Paragraphs 38, 57, 137]).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang further teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the failure related information further includes configuration information related to the CPAC procedure ([Paragraphs 36-38]), and wherein the configuration information includes at least one of:
a list of configured candidate PSCells of the CPAC procedure ([Paragraphs 39, 43, 76, 84]);
one or more triggering events configured for a candidate PSCell within the list of configured candidate PSCells ([Paragraphs 36, 50, 52, 63]);
an indication for indicating whether a measured neighbour PSCell is the candidate PSCell ([Paragraphs 60, 62, 82, 84]); or
one or more measurement configurations configured for the CPAC procedure ([Paragraphs 38, 153]).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang further teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the failure related information further includes identification information, and wherein the identification information includes at least one of:
a type of a PSCell change operation executed during the CPAC procedure ([Paragraph 38]);
a type of a PSCell addition operation executed during the CPAC procedure ([Paragraphs 11, 36-37, 50]);
an indication for indicating that the PSCell change operation is executed during the CPAC procedure ([Paragraphs 59, 62, 80]);
an indication for indicating that the PSCell addition operation is executed during the CPAC procedure ([Paragraphs 83-86]);
an indication for indicating whether a last executed PSCell change operation is a conditional PSCell change (CPC) operation; or
an indication for indicating whether a last executed PSCell addition operation is a conditional PSCell addition (CPA) operation.
Regarding claim 6, Jiang further teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit at least one of:
an indication for indicating occurrence of a SCG failure before initiation of conditional reconfiguration execution towards a target PSCell ([Paragraph 36]);
an indication for indicating occurrence of a master cell group (MCG) failure before the initiation of the conditional reconfiguration execution towards the target PSCell ([Paragraphs 50-53]);
an indication for indicating occurrence of a failure during the conditional reconfiguration execution towards the target PSCell ([Paragraphs 90, 108-109]); or
an indication for indicating an RLF in the candidate PSCell occurring shortly after a completion of the conditional reconfiguration execution towards the target PSCell ([Paragraph 37]).
Regarding claims 8, 10-11, 13, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1, 3-4.
Regarding claim 12, Jiang further teaches the MN of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the MN to receive one or more of:
one or more CPAC configurations; or a container associated with the one or more CPAC configurations ([Paragraph 39]).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang further teaches the MN of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the MN to transmit at least one of the one or more CPAC configurations or the container to the SN ([Paragraphs 100, 147, 180, 239]).
Regarding claims 16, 18-20, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1, 3-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 2, 7, 9, 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0267535) in view of Bergqvist et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0292195).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, Jiang does not explicitly mention: wherein the failure related information further includes time information associated with the CPAC procedure, and wherein the time information includes at least one of: time elapsed between initiation of last conditional reconfiguration execution towards a target PSCell and reception of latest conditional reconfiguration for the target PSCell; time elapsed between occurrence of a secondary cell group (SCG) failure when the UE is connected to a source PSCell and the reception of latest conditional reconfiguration for the CPAC procedure; or time elapsed between the initiation of the last conditional reconfiguration execution towards the target PSCell and the SCG failure.
Bergqvist teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the failure related information further includes time information associated with the CPAC procedure, and wherein the time information includes at least one of: time elapsed between initiation of last conditional reconfiguration execution towards a target PSCell and reception of latest conditional reconfiguration for the target PSCell; time elapsed between occurrence of a secondary cell group (SCG) failure when the UE is connected to a source PSCell and the reception of latest conditional reconfiguration for the CPAC procedure; or time elapsed between the initiation of the last conditional reconfiguration execution towards the target PSCell and the SCG failure (for the disclosed system, time information is included related to time elapsed between reconfigurations towards target cells [Paragraphs 41, 160-162, 186, 238, 296, 300]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Jiang) by considering time elapsing (as taught by Bergqvist) for the purpose of checking failures (Bergqvist – Paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, Jiang does not explicitly mention: UE of claim 1, wherein at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit an indication for indicating an optional capability of the UE for storing or transmitting the failure related information.
Bergqvist teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
UE of claim 1, wherein at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit an indication for indicating an optional capability of the UE for storing or transmitting the failure related information (for the disclosed system, time information is included related to time elapsed between reconfigurations towards target cells [Paragraphs 384]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Jiang) by considering optional capabilities (as taught by Bergqvist) for the purpose of checking failures (Bergqvist – Paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected as applied to claims 1-2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
September 30, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights