Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim 66-68, 70-76, 78-86, 88-94, 96-101 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Remarks regarding double patenting rejections are noted and they are revised and/or maintained accordingly.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Examiner respectfully maintains the prior art cited reasonably teaches/suggests the limitations of the claim(s).
Regarding remarks on page 11-14, applicants state regarding independent claim(s) “…the proposed Johansson-Wang combination at least fails to disclose "after detection of connectivity problems…evaluating the at least one condition" and "if the at least one condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell: starting an additional timer for initiating connection re-establishment to a neighboring cell," as recited in independent claim 66. In a previous response, Applicant submitted that Johansson fails to disclose the additional timer included in claim 66…The timers and conditions disclosed in Johansson and relied on by the Office Action do not fulfill the timing requirements as recited in claim 66.” Referring to the prior art, Johansson was cited for (see at least 0042, T310 timer may be started when radio link problems are detected. See at least 0048, UE may detect event at time t1 based on channel quality threshold (condition) e.g. including neighbor cell higher than a threshold; after a time-to-trigger (TTT) period from the event, UE may send measurement report and start fast RLF timer T310a, thus neighbor cell has fulfilled a threshold condition). Applicant cites Johansson fig. 6, which comprises timers T310, T310a and relevant periods/events:
PNG
media_image1.png
282
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As stated in the prior office action, Johansson was cited for the condition of the neighbor cell exceeding the threshold as being a trigger for a measurement report and start of timer T310a (at time t3). Applicant states “The Office Action equates the claimed radio problem timer to the legacy T310 timer disclosed in paragraph 0042 of Johansson…The Office Action relies on the fast RLF timer T310A disclosed in paragraphs 0047-49 and Figure 6 of Johansson as allegedly disclosing the claimed additional timer.”; Examiner agrees these are the intended mappings. Applicant further states “The evaluating the neighbor threshold disclosed in Johansson occurs at time t1 (annotated by the yellow circle Figure 6), which is before the first event, i.e. detecting connectivity problems towards the first cell, which occurs at time t2. Whereas claim 66 recites that evaluating the at least one condition is fulfilled for the neighboring cell happens after detecting connectivity problems towards the first cell. Accordingly, although timer T310a disclosed in Johansson may be started after the neighbor cell’s quality condition is fulfilled, the neighbor cell’s quality condition disclosed in Johansson cannot be equated to the claimed evaluating the at least one condition is fulfilled for the neighboring cell because the action disclosed in Johansson occurs prior to the UE detecting connectivity problems towards the first cell.” As stated in the previous office action, Johansson was cited for (see at least 0048, “…after a time-to-trigger (TTT) period from time t1, at time t3, the UE is triggered to send out a measurement report to the network); the neighbor cell cannot merely meet the threshold only at t1 for the measurement event/timer T310a to occur. Rather, the threshold must be met for the duration of the TTT, which is not a single instant at t1, but instead a time spanning t1-t3 in Johansson fig. 6. As shown in fig. 6, the TTT starts before the radio problem timer start at t2, but also continues for t2-t3; in order for the UE to know the TTT is fully met, the UE may ensure the neighbor cell meets the threshold during t2-t3, thus evaluating the condition after the radio problem timer has started.
Applicant states in page 13-14, regarding prior office action correspondence “…The Office Action's allegation, however, that further evaluation of the condition must occur after the radio problem timer has started is an implementation detail proposed by the Office Action but not actually disclosed in Johansson. The purpose for the TTT period is that when the TTT period expires, the UE knows that the condition is still fulfilled. Thus, another possibility is that the condition remains true until the UE receives a notification that the condition is not fulfilled and stops/resets the period. If such a notification is not received, the timer expires, the condition is still true, and no further evaluation of the t1 condition was ever performed. There is no disclosure in Johansson that the evaluation performed at t1 is constantly repeated during the TTT period, transforming the handover condition evaluation disclosed in Johansson to the claimed evaluation condition for starting the additional timer for connection reestablishment. Furthermore, even assuming the Office Action's suggested implementation that the condition at t1 is periodically reevaluated one or more times during the TTT period, there is still no showing that the condition must be reevaluated after t2 and before t3 (i.e., after the first event), as claimed. These "assumptions" about the behavior disclosed in Johansson highlight an attempt to retrofit the disclosed handover condition of Johansson to the claimed evaluation condition for starting the additional timer for connection reestablishment, which would not be possible without the use of hindsight based on Applicant's disclosure.” However, applicant only alleges a mere possibility regarding TTT implementation, which is not suggested or disclosed by Johansson, nor has the applicant provided any evidence the TTT must be implemented this way; rather, repeated measurements during TTT appears to be the well known implementation in the art (e.g. see relevant disclosures below). In addition, while applicant asserts “there is still no showing that the condition must be reevaluated after t2 and before t3”, the TTT in fig. 6 is specifically shown to span t1-t3, not t1-t2 or some other span. If, for the sake of applicant’s argument, the condition didn’t need reevaluation after t2 and before t3, there would be no reason for the TTT to even exist in that length in the first place, and no reason for timer T310a to arbitrarily wait until t3 to start. If applicant’s arguments were the case, the TTT would ostensibly end at t2; however, it does not do so in Johansson fig. 6.
Furthermore, even assuming for the sake of argument the TTT was implemented according to applicant’s alleged possibility, the UE receiving a notification of the condition not being fulfilled would not make sense if the UE is performing the measurements on the neighbor cell(s) in the first place; no notifications of cell condition for this purpose/possibility are disclosed in Johansson. Lastly, applicant’s alleged possibility would still constitute evaluating the condition, as the UE needing to listen for this alleged notification for the duration of the TTT comprises continual monitoring for condition invalidation, comprising continual evaluation whether the condition remains met until TTT ends.
In the interest of advancing prosecution the following relevant disclosures are cited:
US 2009/0059871 (see at least 0008, “The TtT is typically a parameter that the UE receives from the NW. In general, the UE starts a timer when a new cell's measured quality fulfils the requirements described in TS 25.331 cited above and stops the timer when that cell's measured quality drops below the aforementioned requirements.”, thus the TTT requires further UE measurement after quality is initially met)
US 2011/0092210 (see at least 0007, “A time-to-trigger (TTT) is used to delay the hand off until the "better" conditions on the target cell persist for at least the TTT duration.” 0028, “The values of the RSRPs that are used to determine whether to hand off the mobile unit from the serving cell to the neighbor cell are filtered values of measurements taken over a time interval”, see 0028 formula)
3GPP TS 25.331, October 1999 (see at least 14.1.5.2, “The effect of the time-to-trigger is that the report is triggered only after the conditions for the event have existed for the specified time-to-trigger.” Fig. 65, 67 show continual fluctuation during the entire TTT, thus continual measurement is necessary to detect this)
Therefore Examiner respectfully submits the prior art cited reasonably teaches/suggests the limitations of the claims including “evaluating the at least one condition; if the at least one condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell: starting an additional timer for initiating connection re-establishment to a neighboring cell”.
Rejections for similar independent and dependent claims are revised and/or maintained accordingly. Claim(s) 71, 72, 73, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 89, 90, 91, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 remain objected to as allowable subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 66-68, 70, 71, 74-76, 78-82, 84-86, 88, 89, 92-94, 96-100 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6, 12-14 of US Patent 10,674,559 and claim 1-6, 12-14 of US Patent 10,306,694 in view of Johansson et al. (US 2013/0183974).
Regarding claim 66, 84, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 66
‘559 patent Claim 1
‘694 patent Claim 1, 6
A method in a user equipment for controlling connection re- establishment between the user equipment and a network, the user equipment being served in a first cell comprised in the network, the method comprising:
Method in a user equipment, UE, for controlling connection re-establishment between said user equipment and a network, said user equipment being served in a first cell comprised in said network, characterized by the steps of:
Method in a user equipment, UE, for controlling connection re-establishment between said user equipment and a network, said user equipment being served in a first cell comprised in said network, characterized by the steps of
receiving a configuration message from the network defining at least one condition;
receiving a configuration message from the network defining at least one condition;
receiving a configuration message from the network defining at least one condition;
after detection of connectivity problems towards the first cell:
upon detection of connectivity problems towards the first cell: starting a counter;
upon detection of connectivity problems towards the first cell: starting a timer; starting a counter;
starting a radio problem timer; and
Not disclosed
Not disclosed
evaluating the at least one condition;
evaluating said at least one condition;
evaluating said at least one condition;
if the at least one condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell:
if said at least one condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell,
if said at least one condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell:
starting an additional timer for initiating connection re-establishment to a neighboring cell;
Not disclosed
Not disclosed
upon expiration of the additional timer, initiating connection re-establishment to the neighboring cell; and
Not disclosed
Not disclosed
stopping the radio problem timer before the radio problem timer expires.
Not disclosed
Not disclosed
stopping the counter before the counter reaches a first threshold value; if said at least one condition is not fulfilled for the neighboring cell, stopping the counter before the counter reaches a second threshold value different from the first threshold value; and initiating connection re-establishment to said neighboring cell
stopping the timer and the counter before the timer expires and before the counter reaches a threshold value; and initiating connection re-establishment to said neighboring cell (claim 6, wherein the timer expires at a certain expiration value, said expiration value being different from an expiration value of said timer that is applied if said at least one condition is not fulfilled)
Claim 1 of ‘559, Claim 1, 6 of ‘694 does not disclose: starting an additional timer for initiating connection re-establishment to a neighboring cell; upon expiration of the additional timer, initiating connection re-establishment to the neighboring cell; and stopping the radio problem timer before the radio problem timer expires. However, Johansson teaches (see at least 0042, radio link problems may be detected, T310 timer may be started. See at least 0047-0049, UE may detect event based on channel quality threshold (condition) e.g. including neighbor cell higher than a threshold; after a time-to-trigger period from the event, at t3, UE may send measurement report and start fast RLF timer T310a (thus timer T310a starts after the quality condition is fulfilled). ”At time t5, the new T310a timer expires and fast RLF is triggered.”, thus UE reconnects via fast RLF before T310 expires). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the functionality of Johansson into the system of claim 1 of ‘559, claim 1, 6 of ‘694 in order to implement fast RLF recovery.
Claim 74, 92 recites substantially similar variation of claim 66 from perspective of a network node and is thus also not patentably distinct for the same reasons in view of Johansson et al. (US 2013/0183974).
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Regarding claim 67, 75, 85, 93, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 67
‘559 patent Claim 2
‘694 patent Claim 2
wherein the at least one condition is related to determining if the user equipment is within the coverage of the neighboring cell
wherein said at least one condition is related to determining if the user equipment is within the coverage of said neighboring cell.
wherein said at least one condition is related to determining if the user equipment is within the coverage of said neighboring cell.
Regarding claim 68, 76, 86, 94, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 68
‘559 patent Claim 3
‘694 patent Claim 3
wherein a condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell if a received signal from the neighboring cell is stronger than a threshold value
wherein a condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell if a received signal from said neighboring cell is stronger than a threshold value.
wherein a condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell if a received signal from said neighboring cell is stronger than a threshold value.
Regarding claim 70, 78, 88, 96, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 70
‘559 patent Claim 4
‘694 patent Claim 4
wherein a condition is fulfilled if a measurement event is triggered for the neighboring cell
wherein a condition is fulfilled if a measurement event is triggered for said neighboring cell.
wherein a condition is fulfilled if a measurement event is triggered for said neighboring cell.
Regarding claim 71, 79, 89, 97, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 71
‘559 patent Claim 5
‘694 patent Claim 5
further comprising receiving a message from the network comprising an indication of at least one neighboring cell for which the radio problem timer should be stopped before the radio problem timer expires if the at least one condition is fulfilled
comprising the step of receiving a message from the network comprising indication of at least one neighboring cell for initiating connection re-establishment if said at least one condition is fulfilled.
comprising the step of receiving a message from the network comprising indication of at least one neighboring cell for which the timer should be stopped before the timer expires if said at least one condition is fulfilled
Regarding claim 80, 98, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 80
‘559 patent Claim 12
‘694 patent Claim 12
wherein the network node uses information of previous connectivity problems to establish which cells should be indicated to the one or more user equipment
wherein the network node utilizes information of previous connectivity problems to establish which cells that should be indicated to the one or more user equipment.
wherein the network node utilizes information of previous connectivity problems to establish which cells that should be indicated to the one or more user equipment.
Regarding claim 81, 99, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 81
‘559 patent Claim 13
‘694 patent Claim 13
wherein the network node receives information from neighboring network nodes about previous re-establishment requests to establish which cells should be indicated to the one or more user equipment
wherein the network node receives information from neighboring network nodes about previous re-establishment requests in order to establish which cells that should be indicated to the one or more user equipment.
wherein the network node receives information from neighboring network nodes about previous re-establishment requests in order to establish which cells that should be indicated to the one or more user equipment
Regarding claim 82, 100, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 82
‘559 patent Claim 14
‘694 patent Claim 14
wherein the network node sends a preparation message to at least one network node controlling at least one cell indicated in the message to said one or more user equipment for preparing such network node to receive a connection re-establishment request from the one or more user equipment
wherein the network node sends a preparation message to at least one network node controlling at least one cell indicated in the message to said one or more user equipments, for preparing such network node to receive a connection re-establishment request from said one or more user equipments.
wherein the network node sends a preparation message to at least one network node controlling at least one cell indicated in the message to said one or more user equipments, for preparing such network node to receive a connection re-establishment request from said one or more user equipments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 66, 67, 68, 70, 74, 75, 76, 78, 84, 85, 86, 88, 92, 93, 94, 96 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being obvious over Johansson et al. (US 2013/0183974) in view of Wang et al. (US 2009/0005029).
For claim 66, Johansson teaches: A method in a user equipment for controlling connection re-establishment between the user equipment and a network, the user equipment being served in a first cell comprised in the network (see at least 0035-0036 and fig. 1, UE may be connected to a serving cell and perform reconnection procedures), the method comprising:
after detection of connectivity problems towards the first cell (see at least 0042, radio link problems may be detected):
starting a radio problem timer (see at least 0042, T310 timer may be started); and
evaluating the at least one condition (see at least 0048, UE may detect event at time t1 based on channel quality threshold (condition) e.g. including neighbor cell higher than a threshold; see fig. 6, the condition may be measured for a time-to-trigger (TTT));
if the at least one condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell (see at least 0048, after the TTT period from the event, at time t3, UE may send measurement report and start fast RLF timer T310a, thus neighbor cell has fulfilled a threshold condition for the duration of the TTT):
starting an additional timer for initiating connection re-establishment to a neighboring cell (see at least 0048, “…after a time-to-trigger (TTT) period from time t1, at time t3, the UE is triggered to send out a measurement report to the network. In addition, at time t3, the RLF process also starts a new T310a timer”, thus timer T310a is started after the neighbor cell’s quality condition is fulfilled);
upon expiration of the additional timer, initiating connection re-establishment to the neighboring cell (see at least 0047-0049, claim 1, fast RLF may trigger before timer T310 expires; ”At time t5, the new T310a timer expires and fast RLF is triggered.”); and
stopping the radio problem timer before the radio problem timer expires (see at least 0047-0049, claim 1, fast RLF may trigger before timer T310 expires; ”At time t5, the new T310a timer expires and fast RLF is triggered.”).
Johansson teaches a neighbor cell condition (see at least 0048, neighbor cell second threshold), but not explicitly: …receiving a configuration message from the network defining at least one condition. Wang from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0031, a WTRU may report a measurement event when a neighbor cell RSRQ is above a relevant threshold; the threshold may be configured by the network). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Wang to the system of Johansson, so the network may configure the quality threshold (condition) for neighbor cells to be detected and reported e.g. RSRQ threshold, as suggested by Wang. The motivation would have been to enhance configuration by allowing the network to specify cells with at least a certain quality of coverage (Wang, 0031), facilitating UE identification of appropriate cells for handover/reestablishment (Wang, 0020).
For claim 67, Johansson, Wang teaches claim 66, Johansson further teaches: wherein the at least one condition is related to determining if the user equipment is within the coverage of the neighboring cell (see at least 0048, UE may detect event based on channel quality threshold (condition) e.g. including neighbor cell higher than a threshold, comprising strength/quality of coverage).
For claim 68, Johansson, Wang teaches claim 67, Johansson further teaches: wherein a condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell if a received signal from the neighboring cell is stronger than a threshold value (see at least 0048, after a time-to-trigger period from the event, UE may send measurement report and start fast RLF timer T310a, thus neighbor cell has fulfilled a threshold condition).
For claim 70, Johansson, Wang teaches claim 67, Johansson further teaches: wherein a condition is fulfilled if a measurement event is triggered for the neighboring cell (see at least 0048, after a time-to-trigger period from the event, UE may send measurement report and start fast RLF timer T310a, thus neighbor cell has fulfilled a threshold condition).
For claim 74, Johansson teaches: A method in a network node for controlling connection re-establishment between the network node and a user equipment, the network node serving the user equipment in a first cell (see at least 0035-0036 and fig. 1, UE may be connected to a serving cell and perform reconnection procedures), the method comprising:
configuring the one or more user equipment to evaluate the at least one condition after detection of connectivity problems towards the first cell, wherein the user equipment starts a radio problem timer upon detection of connectivity problems towards the first cell (see at least 0042, radio link problems may be detected, T310 timer may be started. See at least 0048, UE may detect event at time t1 based on channel quality threshold (condition) e.g. including neighbor cell higher than a threshold; see fig. 6, the condition may be measured for a time-to-trigger (TTT)); and
configuring the one or more user equipment to initiate connection re-establishment to a neighboring cell if the at least one condition is fulfilled for the neighboring cell, wherein the user equipment starts an additional timer for initiating connection re-establishment to a neighboring cell, upon expiration of the additional timer initiates connection re-establishment to the neighboring cell, and stops the radio problem timer before the radio problem timer expires (see at least 0048, “…after a time-to-trigger (TTT) period from time t1, at time t3, the UE is triggered to send out a measurement report to the network. In addition, at time t3, the RLF process also starts a new T310a timer”, thus timer T310a is started after the neighbor cell’s quality condition is fulfilled. See at least 0047-0049, claim 1, fast RLF may trigger before timer T310 expires; ”At time t5, the new T310a timer expires and fast RLF is triggered.”).
Johansson teaches a neighbor cell condition (see at least 0048, neighbor cell second threshold), but not explicitly: …sending a configuration message to one or more user equipment defining at least one condition. Wang from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0031, a WTRU may report a measurement event when a neighbor cell RSRQ is above a relevant threshold; the threshold may be configured by the network). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Wang to the system of Johansson, so the network may configure the quality threshold (condition) for neighbor cells to be detected and reported e.g. RSRQ threshold, as suggested by Wang. The motivation would have been to enhance configuration by allowing the network to specify cells with at least a certain quality of coverage (Wang, 0031), facilitating UE identification of appropriate cells for handover/reestablishment (Wang, 0020).
For claim 75, Johansson, Wang teaches claim 74, Johansson further teaches: wherein the at least one condition is related to determining if a user equipment is within coverage of the neighboring cell (see at least 0048, UE may detect event based on channel quality threshold (condition) e.g. including neighbor cell higher than a threshold, comprising strength/quality of coverage).
For claim 76, Johansson, Wang teaches claim 75, Johansson further teaches: wherein a condition is fulfilled for a neighboring cell if a received signal from the neighboring cell is stronger than a threshold value (see at least 0048, UE may detect event based on channel quality threshold (condition) e.g. including neighbor cell higher than a threshold).
For claim 78, Johansson teaches claim 75, Johansson further teaches: wherein a condition is fulfilled if a measurement event is triggered for the neighboring cell (see at least 0048, after a time-to-trigger period from the event, UE may send measurement report and start fast RLF timer T310a, thus neighbor cell has fulfilled a threshold condition).
Claim 84 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 66 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 85 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 67 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 86 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 68 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 88 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 70 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 92 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 74 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 93 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 75 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 94 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 76 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 96 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 78 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 71, 72, 73, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 89, 90, 91, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 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, and any double patenting rejections addressed.
For claim 71, 79, 89, 97, the prior art fails to teach/suggest: further comprising receiving a message from the network comprising an indication of at least one neighboring cell for which the radio problem timer should be stopped before the radio problem timer expires if the at least one condition is fulfilled. The closest prior art Johansson et al. (US 2013/0183974) discloses a fast T310a timer (0048) but not the amended limitations of the claim(s).
For claim 72, 83, 90, 101, the prior art fails to teach/suggest: comprising the expiration of an additional timer, wherein the additional timer expires at a certain expiration value, the expiration value being different from an expiration value of the timer that is applied if the at least one condition is not fulfilled. The closest prior art Johansson et al. (US 2013/0183974) discloses a fast T310a timer (0048) but not the amended limitations of the claim(s).
For claim 73, 91, the prior art fails to teach/suggest: wherein the radio problem timer expires at a certain expiration value, the expiration value being different from an expiration value of the timer that is applied if the at least one condition is not fulfilled. The closest prior art Johansson et al. (US 2013/0183974) discloses a fast T310a timer (0048) but not the amended limitations of the claim(s).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. 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.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights