DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In virtue of the communication filed on 01/15/2025, claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, 9, 13 are recited in independent form. The present Application claims foreign priority to CN 202210852364.7 with a filing date of 07/02/2022 is a Continuation of PCT/CN2023/101866 with a filing date of 06/21/2023.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. For Example, employing the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in any claim reciting ‘and/or’ is ‘or’ under a BRI.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220225203 to Hu et al (hereinafter d1) in view of US-20220286935 to Fang et al (hereinafter d2).
Regarding claim 1, as to the limitation “A method, the method comprising: receiving, by a first network device, first failure information from a second network device, wherein the first failure information comprises information indicating that a radio link between a terminal device and the first network device fails and first conditional handover configuration information, wherein a master cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs to the first network device, and wherein a secondary cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs to the secondary network device; and sending, by the first network device, a first response message to the second network device, wherein the first response message comprises first indication information or a cell identifier of a first cell, wherein the first indication information indicates to the terminal device to select a cell to access from at least one candidate cell configured based on the first conditional handover configuration information, wherein the terminal device is to be handed over to the first cell, and wherein the first cell comprises a cell of the at least one candidate cell based on the first conditional handover configuration information” d1 discloses a communication method, wherein the method comprises: sending, by a terminal device, first failure information to a second network device when a radio link between the terminal device and a first network device fails, wherein the first failure information comprises first conditional handover configuration information (see d1 figure 4, para. 284 "The terminal device sends the MCG failure message to the SN", para. 117 "When an RLF occurs in an MCG, a terminal device detects whether an SCG fails. If the terminal device does not detect that the SCG fails, the terminal device may initiate an MCG fast recovery procedure. The MCG fast recovery procedure roughly includes: The terminal device sends an MCG failure message to an MN via an SN para. 12), the first network device is a network device to which a master cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs, and the second network device is a network device to which a secondary cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs (see d1 figure 4, para. 259 "It should be understood that if the target cell #1 corresponds to (or belongs to) the MN, in other words, the target cell #1 belongs to an MCG of the MN, the terminal device accesses the MN in S430. If the target cell #1 and a source cell (that is, a cell in which a wireless connection to the terminal device fails) correspond to different network devices (for example, base stations), the MN may be a source network device or a source MN, and the network device corresponding to the target cell #1 is a target network device, denoted as a target network device #1 for ease of differentiation"); and receiving, by the terminal device, a first response message from the second network device (see d1 figure 4, para. 290), wherein the first response message comprises first indication information or a cell identifier of a first cell, wherein the first indication information indicates the terminal device to select a cell to access from a candidate cell configured based on the first conditional handover configuration information; and the first cell is a cell to which the terminal device is to be handed over and is a cell in the candidate cell configured based on the first conditional handover configuration information (§291 "If the MN indicates the terminal device to perform cell handover, optionally, the RRC reconfiguration message may include handover information, to indicate the terminal device to access a target cell #2").
Given the above disclosure and discussion, it Appears to the Examiner that all the limitations may be met by d1. However, in order to provide further support, and in the event d1 is shown to not teach any limitation of the claim, attention is directed to d2.
D2 discloses a first failure information comprises first conditional handover configuration information (para. 0149 "the UE 1002 may send an MCG failure information message to the base station 2 1006, where the message is forwarded to the base station 1 1004. The MCG failure information may carry at least one of: MCG failure cause (in this case: the MN HANDOVER failure), MN HANDOVER target (In this example, the identifier of the cell 3 of the base station 3) , an indication of whether the target PCell of the MN handover is the CHO candidate cell (in this example: yes), one or more CHO candidate cell identifiers, number of CHO candidate cells, a trigger condition of CHO execution, a reference condition of CHO target selection", para. 0155)
It is noted that d1 and d2 included each element claimed although possibly in each single reference, but certainly in combination wherein the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Wherein, d1 and d2 contain ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings including improving network performance (see d2 para. 0004-0009). Further, implementation, in the same field, utilizing elements of d1 and d2 in the same way would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Given the above disclosure and discussion, it Appears to the Examiner that all the limitations may be met by d1 and/or d2.
Regarding claim 9, as to the limitation “A terminal device, comprising :at least one processor; and one or more memories comprising computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to: send first failure information to a second network device in response to a radio link between the terminal device and a first network device failing, wherein the first failure information comprises first conditional handover configuration information, wherein a master cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs to the first network device, and wherein a secondary cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs to the secondary network device; and receive a first response message from the second network device, wherein the first response message comprises first indication information or a cell identifier of a first cell, wherein the first indication information indicates to the terminal device to select a cell to access from at least one candidate cell configured based on the first conditional handover configuration information; and wherein the terminal device is to be handed over to the first cell, and wherein the first cell comprises a cell of the at least one candidate cell based on the first conditional handover configuration information” d1 discloses a communication method, wherein the method comprises: sending, by a terminal device, first failure information to a second network device when a radio link between the terminal device and a first network device fails, wherein the first failure information comprises first conditional handover configuration information (see d1 figure 4, para. 284 "The terminal device sends the MCG failure message to the SN", para. 117 "When an RLF occurs in an MCG, a terminal device detects whether an SCG fails. If the terminal device does not detect that the SCG fails, the terminal device may initiate an MCG fast recovery procedure. The MCG fast recovery procedure roughly includes: The terminal device sends an MCG failure message to an MN via an SN para. 12), the first network device is a network device to which a master cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs, and the second network device is a network device to which a secondary cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs (see d1 figure 4, para. 259 "It should be understood that if the target cell #1 corresponds to (or belongs to) the MN, in other words, the target cell #1 belongs to an MCG of the MN, the terminal device accesses the MN in S430. If the target cell #1 and a source cell (that is, a cell in which a wireless connection to the terminal device fails) correspond to different network devices (for example, base stations), the MN may be a source network device or a source MN, and the network device corresponding to the target cell #1 is a target network device, denoted as a target network device #1 for ease of differentiation"); and receiving, by the terminal device, a first response message from the second network device (see d1 figure 4, para. 290), wherein the first response message comprises first indication information or a cell identifier of a first cell, wherein the first indication information indicates the terminal device to select a cell to access from a candidate cell configured based on the first conditional handover configuration information; and the first cell is a cell to which the terminal device is to be handed over and is a cell in the candidate cell configured based on the first conditional handover configuration information (§291 "If the MN indicates the terminal device to perform cell handover, optionally, the RRC reconfiguration message may include handover information, to indicate the terminal device to access a target cell #2").
Given the above disclosure and discussion, it Appears to the Examiner that all the limitations may be met by d1. However, in order to provide further support, and in the event d1 is shown to not teach any limitation of the claim, attention is directed to d2.
D2 discloses a first failure information comprises first conditional handover configuration information (para. 0149 "the UE 1002 may send an MCG failure information message to the base station 2 1006, where the message is forwarded to the base station 1 1004. The MCG failure information may carry at least one of: MCG failure cause (in this case: the MN HANDOVER failure), MN HANDOVER target (In this example, the identifier of the cell 3 of the base station 3) , an indication of whether the target PCell of the MN handover is the CHO candidate cell (in this example: yes), one or more CHO candidate cell identifiers, number of CHO candidate cells, a trigger condition of CHO execution, a reference condition of CHO target selection", para. 0155)
It is noted that d1 and d2 included each element claimed although possibly in each single reference, but certainly in combination wherein the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Wherein, d1 and d2 contain ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings including improving network performance (see d2 para. 0004-0009). Further, implementation, in the same field, utilizing elements of d1 and d2 in the same way would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Given the above disclosure and discussion, it Appears to the Examiner that all the limitations may be met by d1 and/or d2.
Regarding claim 13, as to the limitation “A first network device, comprising: at least one processor; and one or more memories comprising computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first network device to: receive first failure information from a second network device, wherein the first failure information comprises information indicating that a radio link between a terminal device and the first network device fails and first conditional handover configuration information, wherein a master cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs to the first network device, and wherein a secondary cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs to the second network device; and send a first response message to the second network device, wherein the first response message comprises first indication information or a cell identifier of a first cell, wherein the first indication information indicates to the terminal device to select a cell to access from at least one candidate cell configured based on the first conditional handover configuration information, wherein the terminal device is to be handed over to the first cell, and wherein the first cell comprises a cell of the at least one candidate cell based on the first conditional handover configuration information” d1 discloses a communication method, wherein the method comprises: sending, by a terminal device, first failure information to a second network device when a radio link between the terminal device and a first network device fails, wherein the first failure information comprises first conditional handover configuration information (see d1 figure 4, para. 284 "The terminal device sends the MCG failure message to the SN", para. 117 "When an RLF occurs in an MCG, a terminal device detects whether an SCG fails. If the terminal device does not detect that the SCG fails, the terminal device may initiate an MCG fast recovery procedure. The MCG fast recovery procedure roughly includes: The terminal device sends an MCG failure message to an MN via an SN para. 12), the first network device is a network device to which a master cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs, and the second network device is a network device to which a secondary cell group accessed by the terminal device belongs (see d1 figure 4, para. 259 "It should be understood that if the target cell #1 corresponds to (or belongs to) the MN, in other words, the target cell #1 belongs to an MCG of the MN, the terminal device accesses the MN in S430. If the target cell #1 and a source cell (that is, a cell in which a wireless connection to the terminal device fails) correspond to different network devices (for example, base stations), the MN may be a source network device or a source MN, and the network device corresponding to the target cell #1 is a target network device, denoted as a target network device #1 for ease of differentiation"); and receiving, by the terminal device, a first response message from the second network device (see d1 figure 4, para. 290), wherein the first response message comprises first indication information or a cell identifier of a first cell, wherein the first indication information indicates the terminal device to select a cell to access from a candidate cell configured based on the first conditional handover configuration information; and the first cell is a cell to which the terminal device is to be handed over and is a cell in the candidate cell configured based on the first conditional handover configuration information (§291 "If the MN indicates the terminal device to perform cell handover, optionally, the RRC reconfiguration message may include handover information, to indicate the terminal device to access a target cell #2").
Given the above disclosure and discussion, it Appears to the Examiner that all the limitations may be met by d1. However, in order to provide further support, and in the event d1 is shown to not teach any limitation of the claim, attention is directed to d2.
D2 discloses a first failure information comprises first conditional handover configuration information (para. 0149 "the UE 1002 may send an MCG failure information message to the base station 2 1006, where the message is forwarded to the base station 1 1004. The MCG failure information may carry at least one of: MCG failure cause (in this case: the MN HANDOVER failure), MN HANDOVER target (In this example, the identifier of the cell 3 of the base station 3) , an indication of whether the target PCell of the MN handover is the CHO candidate cell (in this example: yes), one or more CHO candidate cell identifiers, number of CHO candidate cells, a trigger condition of CHO execution, a reference condition of CHO target selection", para. 0155)
It is noted that d1 and d2 included each element claimed although possibly in each single reference, but certainly in combination wherein the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Wherein, d1 and d2 contain ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings including improving network performance (see d2 para. 0004-0009). Further, implementation, in the same field, utilizing elements of d1 and d2 in the same way would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Given the above disclosure and discussion, it Appears to the Examiner that all the limitations may be met by d1 and/or d2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SCOTT TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-3189. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs. 9:00-4:00.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached on 5712723965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN S TAYLOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights