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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 7/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 7/16/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 have overcome the objection to claims 1 and 11 previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 4/16/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 have overcome the 112(b) Rejections to claims 1-11 previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 4/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 in a reply filed 7/16/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of Secondary Considerations:
Applicant’s reliance on the allowance of similar claims in the parent application (in page 10 of Applicant’s remarks) is not persuasive. The allowance of claims in a related application does not, by itself, establish the patentability of the presently pending claims. Each application is examined on its own merits, and the patentability of the instant claims must be determined based on their specific limitations, the applicable prior art, and the applicable statutory requirements.
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0099926 A1, hereinafter Chen) in view of 3GPP TS 38.331 v16.5.0 (3GPP; TSG RAN; NR; RRC protocol specification (Release 16), June 2021, hereinafter TS 38.331).
Regarding claim 1:
Chen teaches a method (see, Chen: Fig. 7 and Fig. 8) performed by a terminal (see, Chen: Fig. 7, UE 702), the method comprising:
transmitting to a Master Node (MN) (see, Chen: Fig. 7, MN 704) a first Uplink (UL) message (e.g., UE capability report), wherein the first UL message comprises a terminal capability parameter on a Primary Secondary Cell Group Cell (PSCell) conditional reconfiguration (see, Chen: para. [0188], “the UE may transmit, to the MN, a UE capability report indicating that the UE supports the conditional reconfiguration for changing from the source PSCell to the target PSCell. … the UE capability report may be transmitted before action 802.”); and
receiving from the MN a first Downlink (DL) message (e.g., RRC reconfiguration message for a condition reconfiguration), wherein: the first DL message comprises a set of parameters for conditional reconfiguration (see, Chen: Fig. 7, Step 716; Fig. 8, Step 802; and para. [0181], “In action 802, the UE may receive, from an MN, a conditional reconfiguration for changing from a source PSCell to a target PSCell in an SCG part of an RRC reconfiguration message. The conditional reconfiguration may include a configuration of the target PSCell and an execution condition. In one implementation, the conditional reconfiguration may include multiple configurations of multiple target PSCells and multiple execution conditions, each of which may be associated with one of the configurations of the target PSCells.”).
Regarding: “the set of parameters for conditional reconfiguration comprises an identifier for conditional reconfiguration, a parameter for execution condition and a second DL message nested within the first DL message;”, Chen further teaches that a conditional reconfiguration command (i.e., the first DL message of the instant application) may be associated with a conditional reconfiguration ID and with one or more execution conditions (see, Chen: para. [0079] [0089-0091] [0106-0109]). Chen further teaches that an execution condition is defined by a measurement ID identifying a measurement configuration and expressly identifies A3/A5 configurations having the PSCell as the target as CPA/CPC configurations (see, Chen: para. [0079]).
Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the first DL message comprising a second DL message nested within the first DL message; the second DL message comprises a set of parameters for radio bearer configuration, a parameter for security key, and a third DL message nested within the second DL message; and the third DL message comprises a set of parameters for cell group configuration for secondary cell group.
In the same field of endeavor, TS 38.331 teaches the standardized structure: CondReconfigToAddModList-r16 containing: condReconfigId-r16; condExecutionCond-r16; and condRRCReconfig-r16 OCTET STRING (CONTAINING RRCReconfiguration) (see, TS 38.331: CondReconfigToAddModList information element, page 403). Thus, the standardized conditional-reconfiguration structure contains an identifier, and execution-condition parameter comprising one or two MeasIds, and an RRCReconfiguraiton message nested within the conditional-reconfiguration structure. The condRRCReconfig is expressly the RRCReconfiguration to be applied when the execution condition is fulfilled (see, TS 38.331: ConditionalReconfiguration information element, pages 403-404).
Regarding: “the second DL message comprises a set of parameters for radio bearer configuration, a parameter for security key, and a third DL message nested within the second DL message;”, TS 38.331 further teaches that wherein the nested RRCReconfiguration (i.e., the second DL message of the instant application) includes: radioBearerConfig RadioBearerConfig and secondaryCellGroup OCTET STRING (CONTAINING CellGroupConfig). The same RRCReconfiguration structure further contains, through its extension IEs, radioBearerConfig2 and sk-Counter SK-Counter. TS 38.331 explains that sk-Counter is used for initial configuration or refresh of the secondary security key, S-KgNB/S-KeNB (see, TS 38.331: Sections 5.3.5.3., 5.3.5.7, and 6.2.2). The specification expressly instructs the UE, upon reception of sk-Counter, to derive or update the secondary key based on the received sk-Counter. Accordingly, TS 38.331 teaches the claimed set of parameters for radio bearer configuration through radioBearerConfig/radioBearerConfig2, the claimed parameter for security key through sk-Counter, and the claimed nested third DL message through: secondaryCellGroup OCTET STRING (CONTAINING CellGroupConfig).
Regarding: “the third DL message comprises a set of parameters for cell group configuration for secondary cell group;”, TS 38.331 expressly identifies secondaryCellGroup as an OCTET STRING containing CellGroupConfig. The CellGroupConfig IE is used to configure either an MCG or an SCG and includes, inter alia, cellGroupID, RLC bearer configuration, MAC cell-group configuration, physical-cell-group configuration, spCellConfig, and SCell configurations (see, TS 38.331: Sections 5.3.5.5 and 6.3.2). Thus, TS 38.331 teaches the claimed nested arrangement: Conditional reconfiguration [Wingdings font/0xE0] condRRCReconfig [Wingdings font/0xE0] RRCReconfiguration [Wingdings font/0xE0] secondaryCellGroup [Wingdings font/0xE0] CellGroupConfig.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Chen in combination of the teachings of TS 38.331 to implement Chen’s conditional PSCell reconfiguration using the standardized NR RRC message and information-element structures taught by TS 38.331. Chen expressly implements its CPC procedure using NR RRC Reconfiguration signaling and teaches receiving a conditional reconfiguration containing candidate PSCell configuration information and execution conditions, storing that configuration, and applying the stored configuration when the execution condition is satisfied (see, Chen: para. [0106-0109] [0121-0128] [0181-0188]). TS 38.331 provides the standardized RRC structures for accomplishing precisely such NR configuration signaling, including CondReconfigToAddModList, condRRCReconfig, RadioBearerConfig, sk-Counter, secondaryCellGroup, and CellGroupConfig. A person of ordinary skill implementing Chen’s expressly disclosed NR CPC procedure therefore would have had reason to employ the standardized TS 38.331 signaling structure to communicate and subsequently apply radio-bearer, security-key, and SCG configuration parameters required for the target PSCell, because doing so represents the standardized implementation of NR RRC configuration and would predictably permit the UE to establish and operate the target SCG following satisfaction of Chen’s execution condition.
Chen in view of TS 38.331 further teaches wherein performing a conditional reconfiguration evaluation based on measurement configuration associated with secondary cell group (e.g., measConfig associated with SCG, see TS 38.331, Section 5.3.5.3 and 5.3.5.10) and the parameter for execution condition (see, Chen: para. [0079] teaches that an execution condition may be defined by a measurement ID identifying a measurement configuration and expressly teaches that when the measurement ID is associated with an A3 or A5 report configuration having the PSCell as the target, the conditional reconfiguration is considered CPA/CPC. Para. [0108] teaches that the execution condition for conditional PSCell addition/change may comprise A3/A5 measurement events and specifically that an execution condition for PSCell change may consist of A3/A5 measurement. Para. [0109] teaches that after receiving the conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change, the UE begins evaluating the execution conditions for the candidate cells. Para. [0121] [0124] and [0127] additionally teach in the MN-initiated CPC embodiment that the MN configures the UE with a measurement configuration, receives measurement reports according to that configuration, sends the conditional-reconfiguration commands, and the UE subsequently evaluates the corresponding execution conditions. Therefore, Chen teaches performing conditional-reconfiguration evaluation based upon a measurement configuration associated with the PSCell/SCG and the execution condition.);
performing conditional reconfiguration execution based on: the set of parameters for radio bearer configuration; the parameter for security key; and the third DL message (see, Chen: para. [0109] teaches that when the candidate cell satisfies its corresponding execution condition, the UE applies the stored corresponding configuration for the selected candidate cell and synchronizes to that candidate cell. Para. [0127] teaches that the UE evaluates the execution condition and, upon satisfaction thereof, applies the stored configuration for the selected PSCell. Para. [0185] expressly recites evaluation of the execution condition followed by application of the target-PSCell configuration and synchronization to the target PSCell. TS 38.331: Section 5.3.5.3, 5.3.5.5, 5.3.5.6, and 5.3.5.7 teach how the stored RRCReconfiguration is executed: the UE applies RadioBearerConfig, derives/updates the secondary key from sk-Counter, and perfoms the cell-group configuration for secondaryCellGroup. In particular, Section 5.3.5.3 instructs the UE to process sk-Counter and secondaryCellGroup, and Section 5.3.5.7 specifies deriving/updating S-KgNB/S-KeNB using the received sk-Counter.); and
transmitting to the MN a second UL message (e.g., Execution Notification message), wherein the second UL message comprises the identifier for conditional reconfiguration (e.g., condReconfigId, see TS 38.331, Section 5.3.5.13.4) (see, Chen: Para. [0089] teaches that when conditional reconfiguration for PSCell addition/change is executed, the UE may send a response/bye message to the PCell or MN; para. [0090] teaches that the response/bye message may include the conditional reconfiguration command ID.; para. [0091-0093] further state that a conditional reconfiguration command may be associated with such an ID. Para. [0128] teaches that the UE sends an Execution Notification message to the MN informing the MN that the conditional reconfiguration command has been executed/applied.; para. [0144-0145] teach that an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message or other RRC signaling may include the executed conditional reconfiguration command ID, thereby allowing the MN to determine which conditional reconfiguration was executed.; Fig. 7, Step 724; Fig. 8, Step 808; and para. [0187], “In action 808, the UE may transmit, to the MN, a response message after determining that the conditional reconfiguration is applied/executed. The response message may indicate to the MN the application/execution of the conditional reconfiguration.”).
Therefore, Chen in view of TS 38.331 renders claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Chen in view of TS 38.331 teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Chen in view of TS 38.331 further teaches wherein: the terminal capability parameter comprises a first list and a second list; the first list comprises one or more band combinations (e.g., band combinations); the second list comprises one or more indications (e.g., indications); and each of the one or more indications in the second list indicates whether conditional PSCell reconfiguration is supported for a corresponding band combination of the one or more band combinations in the first list (see, TS 38.331: Section 5.3.5, “conditional PSCell change configuration”; Section 5.6, “supportedBandCombination List, featureSets, and featureSectCombinations”. TS 38.331 defines UE capability signaling with band combinations and includes feature support indicators tied to band combinations (e.g., FeatureSet, BandCombinationList) while Chen teaches UE capability indicating support for conditional PSCell change (para. [0188]).).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Chen in combination of the teachings of TS 38.331 in order to associate conditional Primary Secondary Cell Group (SCG) Cell (PSCell) change (CPC) support indication with each band combination because capability reporting in TS 38.331 is band-combination specific by design.
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Chen in view of TS 38.331 teaches all limitations in claim 1.
TS 38.331 in view of Chen further teaches wherein the conditional reconfiguration evaluation is performed based on a measurement configuration (see, Chen: para. [0079], “an execution condition may be defined by a measurement ID (or a measure ID/measID) that identifies a measurement configuration”) associated with a master cell group in case that a parameter indicating that a measurement identifier refers to measurement configuration associated with secondary cell group is not comprised in the set of parameters for conditional reconfiguration (see, TS 38.331: Section 5.5, “Measurements”, TS 38.331 teaches wherein measurement configurations may be defined for MCG, SCG, or both and fallback or default measurement behavior is defined when SCG configuration is absent when performing conditional reconfiguration evaluation.).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Chen in view of TS 38.331 teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Chen further teaches wherein the set of parameters for cell group configuration for secondary cell group comprises set of configuration parameters for a target candidate cell (see, Chen: para. [0181], “In action 802, the UE may receive, from an MN, a conditional reconfiguration for changing from a source PSCell to a target PSCell in an SCG part of an RRC reconfiguration message. The conditional reconfiguration may include a configuration of the target PSCell and an execution condition”. Also, see TS 38.331: Section 5.3.5.13, wherein conditionalReconfiguration includes the condRRCReconfig of the target candidate cell.).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Chen in view of TS 38.331 teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Chen in view of TS 38.331 further teaches wherein: the first DL message comprises two or more transaction identifiers; at least one transaction identifier of the two or more transaction identifiers is determined by the MN; and at least one transaction identifier of the two or more transaction identifiers is determined by a secondary node (see, Chen: para. [00181], “The MCG part may include configuration information related to the MCG and the SCG part may include configuration information related to the SCG. In one implementation, the conditional reconfiguration for changing from the source PSCell to the target PSCell may be in the SCG part of the RRC reconfiguration message.” TS 38.331: Section A.5 teaches wherein different entities (MN/SN) generate configuration elements and use separate identifiers per node to track configuration origin and execution, which is a routine implementation choice in distributed system.).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Chen in view of TS 38.331 teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Chen in view of TS 38.331 further teaches wherein: the terminal transmits a third UL message (e.g., RRCReconfigurationComplete) before the second UL message is transmitted (see, Chen: Fig. 7, Step 718; para. [0168], “In action 718, the UE 702 may send an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message to the MN 704.”).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Chen in view of TS 38.331 teaches all limitations in claim 6.
TS 38.331 in view of Chen further teaches wherein: the second UL message comprises two transaction identifiers (e.g., rrc-TransactionIdentifier) (see, TS 38.331: Section A.5, “All UL messages that are direct response to a DL message with an RRC Transaction identifier should include the RRC Transaction identifier.” Accordingly, when different entities (MN and SN) generate configuration elements and use separate identifiers per node to track configuration origin and execution, the UL message comprises two transaction identifiers, i.e., one for MN and one for SN.); and the third UL message comprises a single transaction identifier (e.g., rrc-TransactionIdentifier) (see, TS 38.331: page 275-276, “RRCReconfigurationComplete message”).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Chen in view of TS 38.331 teaches all limitations in claim 1.
TS 38.331 further teaches wherein the parameter for execution condition comprises a first identifier (e.g., measId) and a second identifier (e.g., reportConfigId) (see, TS 38.331: Section 5.3.5.3, “Reception of an RRCReconfiguration by the UE”).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, Chen in view of TS 38.331 teaches all limitations in claim 8.
TS 38.331 further teaches wherein the first identifier is associated with at least one measurement object (see, TS 38.331: Section 5.3.5.3, “Reception of an RRCReconfiguration by the UE”, wherein measID is associated with measObjectId.).
Regarding claim 10:
As discussed above, Chen in view of TS 38.331 teaches all limitations in claim 9.
TS 38.331 further teaches wherein the second identifier is associated with at least one report configuration (see, TS 38.331: Section 5.3.5.3, “Reception of an RRCReconfiguration by the UE”, wherein measID is associated with reportConfigID.).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards a terminal (see, Chen: Fig. 7, UE 702) in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising: a transceiver (see, Chen: Fig. 9, Transceiver 920; para. [0191], UE 900) configured to transmit and receive a signal; and a controller (see, Chen: Fig. 9, Processor 928; para. [0191], UE 900) configured to control the transceiver to: perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
