DETAILED ACTION
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 01/26/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED.
A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/Moo Jeong/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Status of Application
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 11/12/2025.
Claims 21-40 are pending for Examination.
Rejections under §112
The rejections of claims 21, 34, 39, under §112(a), and claims 23 and 27, under §112(b), of the previous Office Action are withdrawn herewith based on Applicant’s corresponding corrective claim amendments.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 in its Appeal brief have been fully considered, but they are determined not to be persuasive, with the exception of Da Silva not explicitly teaching unlicensed frequency bands in connection with its NR frequency bands. This specific argument is determined to be persuasive. Accordingly, the Examiner has issued this new non-final Office Action based on this noted deficiency of Da Silva. However, the Examiner notes that Dinan makes up for this deficiency, as explained in the §103 rejections of claims 21, 34, and 39, of the instant Office Action.
Regarding Point 1
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are largely superseded by the ensuing §112(a), written description and enablement requirement rejections provided herewith. However, Applicant also points out that Da Silva does not explicitly describe its invention in terms of unlicensed frequency bands. Da Silva teaches NR frequency bands and legacy LTE frequency bands. It is well known that NR achieves bandwidth compliance for 5G standards, in part with the addition of NR-U unlicensed frequency bands (such as w/5-6GHz unlicensed bands), considering WiFi coexistence. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider unlicensed frequency bands in association with the teaching of Da Silva, even though Da Silva does not expressly discuss them.
Regardless, the instant rejection of Applicant’s independent claims includes the combination of Dinan with Da Silva under §103, which does explicitly teach the inclusion of a unlicensed frequency bands in combination with licensed frequency bands. Therefore, Dinan appropriately cures any deficiency of Da Silva relating to explicitly teaching the inclusion of unlicensed frequency bands. Applicant argues that LTE and NR do not include unlicensed frequency bands. The Examiner disagrees, however; NR includes NR-U (unlicensed), as previously discussed.
Regarding Point 2
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are largely superseded by the ensuing §112(a), written description and enablement requirement rejections provided herewith. Applicant also argues that Dinan does not teach “suspending the preamble transmission counter,” because “the PTC is not reset, but merely suspended for a period of time, which is shown by the RA window gap between PTC =2 and PTC =3.” However, the claims do not recite any resetting of a PTC. Applicant therefore admits that the PTC of Dinan is in fact suspended for a period of time, which fairly reads on the contested claim limitation of “suspending the preamble transmission counter.”
Regarding Point 3
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are superseded by the ensuing §112(a), written description and enablement requirement rejections provided herewith.
Regarding Point 4
Applicant argues the motivation to combine Da Silva and Dinan, because Da Silva relates to LTE and NR, whereas Dinan relates to LAA unlicensed communications. The Examiner notes that NR includes NR-U. NR achieves bandwidth compliance for 5G standards in part with the addition of NR-U unlicensed frequency bands (such as w/5-6GHz unlicensed bands). Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to consider unlicensed frequency bands, such as the LAA unlicensed bands of Dinan, in association with the NR teaching of Da Silva.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the Examiner has provided sufficient motivation to combine Dinan with Da Silva, which is to save UE battery power while camped on, and monitoring, an unlicensed PSCell, as recognized by Dinan.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to Points-1-4, pertaining its independent claims are determined not to be persuasive.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) 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. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with both the written description requirement and the enablement requirement.
Regarding claims 21, 34, and 39, these claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, each of independent claims 21, 34, and 39, recites: “first adjustment circuitry configured to adjust, according to a second parameter of a channel payload measured by a terminal equipment, a threshold for a number of transmission of random access preambles included in a radio link failure detection process,” which is not adequately supported by Applicant’s combined disclosure, as originally filed. Specifically, there is no written description that describes adjusting a random access preamble threshold based on a parameter relating to a terminal-measured channel payload. The Examiner notes that any time channel payload is measured within Applicant’s disclosure a connection already exists, and such a payload measurement only takes place as a part of a connected radio link monitoring (RLM) process. In contrast, random access (RA) relates to re/establishing a connection, when there is no current connection. The claims recite channel payload measurement in association with RA preamble threshold adjustment, which is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant broadly indicates that support for the above claim subject matter exists in its original disclosure at: “page 4, line 18 to page 30, line 20 and Figs. 1-7,” which includes Applicant’s entire “Detailed Description.” Appeal Brief: Summary of Claimed Subject Matter at p. 5. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with there being support for adjusting a threshold of RA preambles according to a parameter of a channel payload measured by a UE.
In fact, a channel payload measurement parameter is only described within Applicant’s disclosure in connection with a “first condition” for RLF detection that is related to PHY layer radio link monitoring (RLM), in terms of ongoing synchronization, as opposed to RA re/establishment based RLF. In this regard, Applicant’s para. [0066]-[0067] (of its PG Pub), recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
491
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As described above, under the first condition, a parameter of a channel payload includes various channel usage parameters, such as CBR, CR, LBT success rate, etc., and may be obtained through UE measurement, i.e., during RLM, and can be used for determining RLF in conjunction with various synchronization counters, N310/N311, and timers. In general, the RLF detected under the first condition is due to detected synchronization problems during routing RLM processes while the UE is in connected mode.
Applicant’s disclosure further describes, in subsequent paras. [0068]-[0070] (of its PG Pub), that is out-of-sync counter value, N310, may be an adjusted parameter corresponding to the first condition, where N310 can be adjusted to N310/(1-CBR), etc. Notably, CBR may be determined through terminal measurements, as previously described. Applicant’s disclosure also describes adjusting its N310 counter to adjust a triggering condition for an out-of-sync indication to the higher layer of the terminal, i.e., blocks 202a/202 of Fig. 2.
Applicant’s para. [0075] (of its PG Pub) similarly describes channel payload parameter usage/adjustment, as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
211
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, an RA problem leading to RLF detection is described in Applicant’s disclosure as an alternative scenario, relating to a “second condition,” which does not include any channel payload measurement used for adjusting an RA preamble Tx threshold. In terms of adjusting “a threshold for a number of transmissions of random access preambles” Applicant’s paras. [0085]-[0086], instead recites:
PNG
media_image3.png
322
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
320
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above paragraphs describe that upon a terminal detecting a RA preamble threshold breach, i.e., PreTransMax + 1, not indicating an RA problem, but continuing to count and reporting the RA problem instead when the number of preambles reaches a value (N1), as provided by the network. Then, the above disclosure describes the same procedure suspending the first preamble counter and using a second preamble counter, different from the first counter, until the second counter reaches a value (N2), according to parameters again provided by the network device, etc. As such, Applicant’s disclosure only teaches applying multiple different preamble counters and counter thresholds: PreTransMax, N1, and N2, which are provided by the network, in contrast to the above claim subject matter relating to a UE adjusting its own RA preamble threshold based on channel payload measurement.
Separate RLF detection processes/conditions are also described to improve accuracy of detecting RLF at para. [0088], above:
i. RLF detection triggered by a physical layer issue (i.e., while connected), and/or
ii. RLF detection in a RA procedure (i.e., while not connected).
In this regard, the Examiner notes that the physical layer RLF detection includes the RLM synchronization counter, N310, value adjustment “…according to a second parameter of a channel payload measured by a terminal equipment,” i.e., where N310 can be adjusted to N310/(1-CBR), as previously described. However, Applicant’s original disclosure does not describe any adjustment of “a threshold for a number of transmission of random access preambles included in a radio link failure detection process…,” “…according to a second parameter of a channel payload measured by a terminal equipment,” as recited in each of independent claims 21, 34, and 39.
Notably, the only example provided for RA preamble threshold adjustment in Applicant’s disclosure contrarily describes employing multiple, distinct preamble counter thresholds, i.e., N1 and N2, which are provisioned by the network, as recited in the second alternative (RA preamble embodiment) of dependent claim 23. Therefore, for all of the above reasons, Applicant’s combined disclosure fails to comply with the written description requirement of §112(a), as there is no descriptive support for the above-identified claim subject matter recited in Applicant’s independent claims 21, 34, and 39.
Moreover, Applicant’s original disclosure also does not does not satisfy the enablement requirement under §112(a), as there is only one, contradictory example for preamble threshold adjustment that employs multiple, distinct preamble counter thresholds, i.e., N1 and N2, which are provisioned by the network, as recited in dependent claim 23. This teaching is silent with respect to teaching adjusting a RA preamble parameter according to a measured channel payload. The Examiner notes that the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without "undue experimentation." See, e.g., In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736-37, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1402 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In this regard, those skilled in the art would not understand how to make and use the claimed feature of: adjusting “a threshold for a number of transmission of random access preambles included in a radio link failure detection process…,” with “first adjustment circuitry …according to a second parameter of a channel payload measured by a terminal equipment,” as recited in Applicant’s amended independent claims 21, 34, and 39, because the original disclosure does not describe or provide any examples of how to make and use this claimed subject matter. The claims appear to convolute the connected, RLM payload measurement with the RA preamble retransmission process, while not connected, by incorrectly combining/meshing processes of distinct RLF detection procedures (identified as different RLF conditions), without adequate support in the original disclosure.
With respect to claims 22-33, 35-38, and 40, these claims are likewise rejected under §112(a) under both the written description requirement and the enablement requirement, for the same reasons described above for independent claims 21, 34, and 39, through dependency.
The Examiner respectfully recommends Applicant amend its independent claims to more closely track the RA RLF detection procedure/processes recited in the lower portion (i.e., the second RLF condition) of its dependent claim 23, which is fully supported by its original disclosure. The Examiner also notes that amended claim limitations, which are not supported by the original disclosure in a corresponding foreign priority document do not receive the priority benefit thereof.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21, 23, 24, 27, 33-36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2020/0344019 A1, DaSilva et al. (hereinafter “Da Silva”) in view of US PG Pub 2017/0006641 A1, “Dinan.”
With Respect to Claim 21, Da Silva teaches:
A radio link detection apparatus, provided in a terminal equipment (UE 1430 of Fig. 14) and comprising:
first adjustment circuitry (UE processing circuitry 1438 of Fig. 14) configured to adjust, according to a second parameter of a channel payload measured by the terminal equipment, a threshold for a number of transmissions of random access preambles included in a radio link failure detection process (paras. [0003], [0009], [0022]-[0024], [0069], [0156], and [0176]-[0178]—a UE can adjust its RLF threshold N310/313 OOS count threshold(s) for RS, i.e., CSI-RS, channel measurements corresponding to SINR and/or BLER).
detecting circuitry configured to determine that a radio link using a NR frequency band fails when a higher layer of the terminal equipment receives an indication on a random access issue upon the number, counted by the counter when the counter is not suspended, of transmissions of random access preambles exceeding the adjusted threshold (paras. [0009], [0013]-[0015], [0024]; and Table 3 —for DRX an OOS counter threshold breach can be detected, i.e., a N313 breach of an PSCell, and a RLF can be declared corresponding to a RA issue); and
a second timer related to reestablishment of connection does not operate (paras. [0008]-[0009]; and Table 2 —a T311 reestablishment timer is not running when a RLF corresponding a RA problem is detected).
Da Silva does not explicitly teach:
wherein its NR frequency band is an unlicensed frequency band.
wherein the radio link failure detection process includes suspending a counter that is configured to count a number of transmissions of random access preambles.
Dinan does teach
wherein a frequency band is an unlicensed frequency band (paras. [0159]-[0161], and [0180] —LAA includes unlicensed frequency bands).
wherein the radio link failure detection process includes suspending a counter that is configured to count a number of transmissions of random access preambles (paras. [0180], and [0189]-[0192] —for an unlicensed LAA cell a preamble transmission counter (PTC) may be suspended and a preamble transmission opportunity counter (PTOC) can be employed as an for RAP based RLF detection, i.e., for an unlicensed PSCell). Applicant’s disclosure likewise describes employing the N313 counter, to count for out-of-sync indications of an unlicensed PSCell, at p. 15, ¶¶1. See also, Da Silva Table 3).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Da Silva’s RLF detection process to suspend a N310 counter of a PCell, to instead employ a N313 counter for an unlicensed PSCell in LAA, as taught by Dinan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to save UE battery power while camped on, and monitoring, an unlicensed PSCell, as recognized by Dinan (paras. [0180], and [0189]-[0192]).
With respect to Claim 23, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches:
The radio link detection apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the adjusted radio link failure detection process comprises one or more of the following steps:
when the number of out-of-synchronization indications reaches the number (N310) of out-of-synchronization indication(s) starting a first timer (T310) (Da Silva: paras. [0008]-[0009]; and Fig. 2 —at step 203 the UE detects up to N310 consecutive out of sync events and starts timer T310 —the Examiner notes that the term “one or more of” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language, section).
With Respect to Claim 24, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches:
The radio link detection apparatus according to claim 21, wherein, the second parameter of a channel payload is a parameter representing a channel usage status (Da Silva: paras. [0022]-[0024], [0095], [0156], and [0176] —a UE can adjust its RLF threshold N310/313 OOS count threshold(s) for RS, i.e., CSI-RS, channel measurements corresponding to SINR and/or BLER —SINR and/or BLER can correspond to parameter(s) that represent channel usage status).
With respect to Claim 27, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches:
The radio link detection apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the radio link detection apparatus further comprises:
first receiving circuitry configured to receive a configuration of the network device (Da Silva: paras: [0009] [0223], and [0265]; and 701 of Fig. 7 —a UE can receive a configuration from the network including RLF timers and constants, i.e., when in RRC_Connected mode);
wherein the first adjusting circuitry adjusts the first parameter used for radio link failure detection based on the configuration of the network device (Da Silva: paras: [0009] [0223], and [0265]; and 701 of Fig. 7 —a UE can receive a configuration from the network including RLF timers and constants and change stored parameters accordingly —Notably, Dinan: paras. [0186]-[0187], also describes a UE being configured by an eNB with a certain count of RA preamble transmissions, but the UE can selectively adjust/increase its configured preamble transmission counter to account for LAA LBT missed opportunities).
With respect to Claim 33, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches:
The radio link detection apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the radio link detection apparatus further comprises:
second adjusting circuitry configured to control a physical layer of the terminal equipment to determine whether to report an out-of-synchronization indications to the higher layer of the terminal equipment according to a relationship between a measurement quantity and a threshold in a combination of thresholds, or according to a relationship between a parameter of a channel payload and a threshold; wherein the combination of measurement amount and thresholds comprises at least two thresholds (Dinan: paras. [0174], [0177]-[0179], and [0194]; and Fig. 19 —the PHY of the terminal device can decide whether to report a RAP transmission failure to the MAC of the terminal device due to a RAP LBT failure, in addition to measured OOS RAP failure, in which case the MAC can decide not to increment the RAP transmission counter and not to increase the RAP transmission power —Further, the PHY layer can also send a power ramping suspension indicator to the MAC layer —in this context, the RAP transmission counter threshold(s) is interpreted to correspond to a measurement quantity threshold counter for OOS indications that relates to the OOS RAP count threshold as well as the LBT opportunity count threshold —the term “or” only requires examination of a single alternative on the merits, as explained in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to Claim 34, this claim recites similar features/limitations to independent Claim 21, except the radio link detection apparatus is provided in a network device (Da Silva: Base station 160 of Fig. 6 and 1420 of Fig. 14), as opposed to a terminal equipment. As such, Claim 34 is rejected under § 103 over Da Silva in view of Dinan, based on the same rationale provided above for Claim 21.
With respect to Claim 35, this claim recites similar features/limitations to Claim 24. As such, Claim 35 is rejected under § 103 over Da Silva in view of Dinan, based on the same rationale provided above for Claim 24.
With respect to Claim 36, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches:
The radio link detection apparatus according to claim 34, wherein, the parameters transmitted by the network device to the terminal equipment used for representing transmission status of synchronization signal blocks and/or reference signals and provided by the network device comprise one or more of the following:
information on actually transmitted synchronization signal blocks between the network device and the terminal equipment, offsets of actually transmitted reference signals and/or synchronization signal blocks (SSBs), the number of pieces or the number of times of being unable to transmit due to LBT within a predetermined period of time, and the parameter of a channel payload transmitted by the network device (Da Silva: paras. [0015]-[0019], [0022]-[0023], [0038], [0176] and [0180] —the network can transmit RLF parameters to the UE via IEs such as RLF_TimersandConstants and RRCConfigDedicated within SIB2 or RRC messaging —parameters configured can include offsets to be applied for a transmitted RS, such as a CSI-RS or SSB —terms such as “or” along with “one or more” indicate alternatives, and require examination of only one listed alternative on the merits, as explained in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to Claim 39, this claim recites similar features/limitations to independent Claims 21 and 34 represented as a combined communication system (Da Silva: communication system with terminal device 110 and base station 160 of Fig. 6). As such, Claim 39 is rejected under § 103 over Da Silva in view of Dinan, based on the same rationale provided above for Claims 21 and 34, combined.
With respect to Claim 40, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches:
The radio link detection apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the counting by the counter being suspended according to the second parameter is that the counting by the counter is not performed according to the second parameter (Dinan: paras. [0180], and [0189]-[0192] —for an unlicensed LAA cell a preamble transmission counter (PTC) may be suspended and a preamble transmission opportunity counter (PTOC) can be employed as an for RAP based RLF detection, i.e., for an unlicensed PSCell). Applicant’s disclosure likewise describes employing the N313 counter, to count for out-of-sync indications of an unlicensed PSCell, at p. 15, ¶¶1. See also, Da Silva Table 3).
Claims 25, 26, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Dinan, in further view of US PG Pub 2016/0143014 A1, Mukherjee et al. (hereinafter “Mukherjee”).
With Respect to Claim 25, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 24:
Da Silva in view of Dinan does not teach wherein, the parameter of a channel payload comprises at least one of the following: a channel busy ratio, a channel occupancy, and a listen-before-talk (LBT) success rate (the term “at least one of,” only requires the examination of a single alternative on the merits, as explained in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section above)
Mukherjee does teach of LTE-U (unlicensed) communications and employing a parameter of a channel payload with a LBT success rate (paras. [0033] and [0103] —LBT success over a prospective carrier is represented by a parameter for LBT history in terms of a recent LBT success or failure rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Da Silva in view of Dinan’s radio link failure detection process to incorporate the teachings of Mukherjee, in order to provide the feature of including a LBT success rate parameter that indicates channel usage.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further refine RLF detection in real-time, based on LBT history success rate, recognized by Mukherjee (paras. [0033] and [0158] —LBT failure rates give insight as to when an unlicensed channel/band may be busy and could possibly fail).
With respect to Claim 26, Da Silva in view of Dinan and Mukherjee teaches the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 25.
However, Da Silva does not teach:
the listen-before-talk (LBT) success rate is a ratio of the number of times of success of listen-before-talk within a predetermined period of time to the number of times of all listen-before-talk within the predetermined period of time.
Mukherjee does teach:
a listen-before-talk (LBT) success rate is a ratio of the number of times of success of listen-before-talk within a predetermined period of time to the number of times of all listen-before-talk within the predetermined period of time (paras. [0033] and [0105] —The Examiner interprets the claimed LBT success ratio to be equivalent to LBT success rate over time (i.e., a percentage), which is equivalent to a “rate of recent LBT success”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Da Silva in view of Dinan’s radio link failure detection process to incorporate the teachings of Mukherjee, in order to provide the feature of including a LBT success rate parameter that indicates channel usage.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further refine RLF detection in real-time, based on LBT history success rate, recognized by Mukherjee (paras. [0033] and [0158] —LBT failure rates give insight as to when an unlicensed channel/band may be busy and could possibly fail).
With respect to Claim 31, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 21:
Da Silva in view of Dinan does not teach a parameter of a channel payload comprising one or more of a channel busy ratio, a channel occupancy, and an LBT success rate.
Mukherjee does teach of LTE-U (unlicensed) communications and employing a parameter of a channel payload with a LBT success rate (paras. [0033] and [0103] —LBT success over a prospective carrier is represented by a parameter for LBT history in terms of a recent LBT success or failure rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Da Silva in view of Dinan’s radio link failure detection process to incorporate the teachings of Mukherjee, in order to provide the feature of including a LBT success rate parameter that indicates channel usage.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further refine RLF detection in real-time, based on LBT history success rate, recognized by Mukherjee (paras. [0033] and [0158] —LBT failure rates give insight as to when an unlicensed channel/band may be busy and could possibly fail).
With respect to Claim 32, Da Silva in view of Dinan and Mukherjee teaches the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 31, wherein the second parameter of a channel payload is transmitted via one or more of the following: a radio resource control (RRC) connection reconfiguration complete message, a radio resource control (RRC) connection reestablishment complete message, a radio resource control (RRC) connection response complete message, a radio resource control (RRC) connection setup complete message, a measurement report message, a terminal equipment information response message, and a secondary cell group (SCG) information report message (Da Silva: paras. [0015]-[0017] —the RLF parameters can be transmitted from the network within RRCConnectionReconfiguration, RRCConnectionReestablishment, RRCConnectinoResume, or RRCConnectionSetup messages, or as part of part of SCG report messages, when the parameters correspond to SCG RLF parameters —the term “one or more of” requires examination of only one alternative on the merits, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section).
Claims 28, 29, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Dinan, in further view of Balachandran et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0271763 A1, hereinafter “Balachandran”).
Regarding Claim 28, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 21, comprising control circuitry configured to conduct a reestablishment connection and selecting circuitry (Da Silva: para. [0008] and UE processing circuitry 1438 of Fig. 14), wherein the detecting circuitry determines, when a higher layer of the terminal equipment receives an indication of a random access problem and a second timer related to the reestablishment does not work, that a radio link using an unlicensed band fails (Da Silva: paras. [0016] and [0024] and Tables 2-5; and Dinan: paras. [0180] —for the PSCell upon receiving N313 OOS indications, the T313 timer starts and upon expiry, without N314 in-sync count reestablishment being achieved, a SCG RLF band fails for LAA).
However, Da Silva in view of Dinan does not teach:
wherein, the selecting circuitry performs cell selection or cell reselection when the radio link in a primary cell group fails.
Balachandran does teach:
selecting circuitry that performs cell selection or cell reselection when the radio link in a primary cell group fails. (para. [0061], and 208 of Fig. 2B —discloses at the expiry of a RLF timer that is initiated by counter N310 exceeding an out-of-sync threshold, the wireless device identifies a RLF and performs a cell selection procedure or cell search, i.e., for reselection).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Da Silva in view of Dinan’s radio link failure detection process to incorporate the teachings of Balachandran, in order to respond to a detected RLF by cell selection or reselection.
The motivation for doing so would have been to recover from a RLF at a UE by reestablishing service for the UE under differing radio conditions, as taught by Balachandran (paras. [0053]-[0054] —more efficient RLM and RLF detection can lead to better service recovery with less signaling overhead and power consumption waste).
With respect to Claim 29, Da Silva in view of Dinan, and Balachandran teaches the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 28
However, Da Silva does not teach:
wherein, when the selecting circuitry performs cell selection, in a criterion for cell selection, a first threshold is used for the unlicensed frequency band, the first threshold being different from or identical to a second threshold used for a licensed frequency band.
Balachandran does teach:
wherein, when the selecting circuitry performs cell selection, in a criterion for cell selection, a first threshold is used for the unlicensed frequency band, the first threshold being different from or identical to a second threshold used for a licensed frequency band (paras. [0061], [0114], and [0115]; and Dinan: paras. [0080], [0185]-[0186], and [0194] —a RA RLF counter value/threshold a counter value for a licensed PCell (PTC) will always be less than or equal to a counter for an unlicensed SCell in LAA (PTOC) —the alternative term “or” requires examination of only a single alternative on the merits —a RA attempt threshold can be employed to determine the scheduling of various frequency bands; the RSRP threshold is different from the RA attempt threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Da Silva radio link failure detection process to incorporate the teachings of Balachandran, in order to respond to a detected RLF by cell selection or reselection.
The motivation for doing so would have been to recover from a RLF at a UE by reestablishing service for the UE under differing radio conditions, as taught by Balachandran (paras. [0053]-[0054] —more efficient RLM and RLF detection can lead to better service recovery with less signaling overhead and power consumption waste).
With respect to Claim 37, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches:
the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 34, wherein the radio link detection apparatus further comprises: second configuring circuitry configured to configure the terminal equipment with one or more of the following parameters:
a first threshold used for an unlicensed frequency band, the first threshold being different from or identical to a second threshold used for a licensed frequency band (Dinan: paras: [0189]-[0191] and [0194] —a UE can be configured with both a PTC threshold for a licensed cell and a PTOC threshold for an unlicensed cell in LAA, where the threshold values are different/equal such that PTC is always less than or equal to the PTOC); or an offset related to a channel payload and used for cell selection determined by the network device; or a measurement quantity related to the channel payload and used for cell selection determined by the network device; or a threshold and/or an offset of the measurement quantity related to the channel payload and used for cell selection determined by the network device (terms such as “and/or” along with “one or more” and “or” indicate alternatives, and require examination of only one listed alternative on the merits, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section).
However, Da Silva in view of Dinan does not teach:
circuitry configured to configure the terminal equipment with the one or more parameters in a criterion for cell selection.
Balachandran does teach configuring circuitry for performing cell selection when the radio link in a primary cell group fails. (para. [0061], and 208 of Fig. 2B —discloses at the expiry of a RLF timer that is initiated by counter N310 exceeding an out-of-sync threshold, the wireless device identifies a RLF and performs a cell selection).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Da Silva in view of Dinan’s radio link failure detection process to incorporate the teachings of Balachandran, in order to respond to a detected RLF by cell selection.
The motivation for doing so would have been to recover from a RLF at a UE by reestablishing service for the UE under differing radio conditions, as taught by Balachandran (paras. [0053]-[0054] —more efficient RLM and RLF detection can lead to better service recovery with less signaling overhead and power consumption waste).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Dinan, in further view of US Patent No. 9,420,627 B2, Yiu et al. (hereinafter “Yiu”).
With respect to Claim 22, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 21.
However, Da Silva and Dinan do not explicitly teach:
wherein the apparatus is configured to further adjust one or more of the following parameters: a duration of a first timer (T310), the number (N310) of out-of-synchronization indication(s) starting the first timer (T310), the number (N311) of in-synchronization indications stopping the first timer (T310), and a duration of a fourth timer (T312) used for a fast radio link failure (fast RLF) detection (the term “one or more of” only requires examination of a single alternative on-the-merits as explained in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
Yiu does teach:
a UE that is configured to adjust a duration of a first timer (T310) based on various conditions affecting the UE or the its mobility (col. 2, lines 34-67 and col. 5, lines 42-51; and Fig. 3B —a UE can adjust its T310 timer using its scaling unit).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Da Silva in view of Dinan’s RLF detection process, including a T310 timer, to allow a UE to adjust its T310 RLF timer by scaling the time of the T310 timer to account for UE mobility and/or various network conditions, as taught by Yiu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to save UE battery power by declaring RLF earlier than normal according to an adjusted T310 timer, as recognized by Yiu (col. 2, lines 34-67 and col. 5, lines 42-51; and Fig. 3B).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Dinan and Balachandran, in further view of UP PG Pub 2021/0022056 A1, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
With respect to Claim 30, Da Silva in view of Dinan and Balachandran teaches the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 28.
However, Da Silva in view of Dinan and Balachandran do not explicitly teach:
wherein when performing cell reselection, the terminal equipment sets a priority of the unlicensed frequency band to be lower than a priority of the licensed frequency band.
Lee does teach:
when performing cell reselection, a UE sets a priority of the unlicensed frequency band to be lower than a priority of the licensed frequency band for cell reselection (paras. [0152], [0159]-[0160], and [0169] —for reselection due to OOS-based RLF, a UE can prioritize a licensed frequency band over an unlicensed frequency band).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Da Silva in view of Dinan and Balachandran’s RLF detection and reselection process, to prioritize licensed cells over unlicensed cells for reselection, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reselect to a known, licensed network that does not require LBT and consumes fewer UE resources during channel acquisition, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0152], [0159]-[0160], and [0169]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Dinan, in further view of Lee.
With respect to claim 38, Da Silva in view of Dinan teaches the radio link detection apparatus according to claim 34, wherein the radio link detection apparatus further comprises configuring circuitry (Da Silva: BS processing circuitry 1428 of Fig. 14) configured to configure following parameter(s) to the terminal equipment (Da Silva: paras: [0009] [0223], and [0265]; and 701 of Fig. 7 —a UE can receive a configuration from the network including RLF timers and constants, etc., i.e., when in RRC_Connected mode).
However, Da Silva and Dinan do not teach:
a priority of a licensed frequency band being higher than a priority of an unlicensed frequency band (alternative terms such as “one or more of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Limitations, section).
Da Silva in view of Dinan does not teach:
a terminal equipment being configured with a priority of a licensed frequency band being higher than a priority of an unlicensed frequency band, for cell reselection.
Lee does teach:
a terminal equipment being configured with a priority of a licensed frequency band being higher than a priority of an unlicensed frequency band, for cell reselection (paras. [0152], [0159]-[0160], and [0169] —for reselection due to OOS-based RLF, a UE can prioritize a licensed frequency band over an unlicensed frequency band).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Da Silva in view of Dinan’s RLF detection procedure to prioritize licensed cells over unlicensed cells for reselection, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reselect to a known, licensed network that does not require LBT and consumes fewer UE resources during channel acquisition, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0152], [0159]-[0160], and [0169]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights