DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17/894,822 filed on 08/24/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 13-16, 18-19 and 21 are amended. Claims 4, 7, 8, 10 is cancelled. Claims 22-24 are added. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9 and 11-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Lee et al. (US 2016/0029282 A1) fails to disclose or suggest: “the RACH-less handover failure comprises an uplink resource for accessing a target network device indicated by RACH Skip information being unavailable”, as recited by claims 1, 18 and 19.
Applicant further argues that Lee allegedly discloses only a contention-free RACH procedure using a dedicated RACH preamble and therefore does not disclose “RACH Skip Information” or a “RACH-less handover”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated in Lee, “(Para. 0099), UE accesses the target cell via RACH following a contention-free procedure using a dedicated RACH preamble or following a contention-based procedure if dedicated RACH preambles are not available”. Lee therefore expressly discloses a condition in which a dedicated uplink access resource is unavailable, namely when “dedicated RACH preambles are not available”. In response to such condition, Lee teaches fallback behavior utilizing an alternate access procedure. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the dedicated RACH preamble disclosed by Lee to constitute an uplink resource used for accessing the target cell.
Applicant’s argument improperly attempts to distinguish the claims based on nomenclature rather than functional operation. The claims do not require any particular signaling format or message name for the “RACH Skip Information”. The claims merely require that an uplink resource for accessing a target network device be indicated and that such resource be unavailable during the handover procedure. Lee expressly teaches the availability and unavailability of dedicated uplink access resources during handover operations.
Applicant additionally argues that the dedicated RACH preamble in Lee is transmitted from the UE to the target cell, whereas the alleged “RACH Skip Information” is transmitted from the target network device to the terminal device. However, amended independent claims do not explicitly recite any particular transmission direction, signaling source, or message format for the claimed “RACH Skip Information”. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments imports limitations from the specification into the claims. During patent examination, limitations appearing only in the specification but not positively recited in the claims cannot be relied upon to distinguish over the prior art.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Lee is limited to RACH handover and does not involve “RACH-less” handover. Lee is directed to handover procedures involving the allocation, use, and fallback handling of uplink access resources associated with handover operations. The claims do not explicitly exclude contention-free RACH procedure, contention-based fallback procedures, or handover operations involving RACH resources. Nor do the claims require complete elimination of PRACH-related signaling. Instead, the claims broadly recite a “RACH-less handover failure” associated with uplink resource unavailability. Lee’s disclosure of unavailable dedicated RACH resources during handover reasonably corresponds to the claimed failure scenario.
Moreover, the Office Action relies on Ericsson (“RACH-less handover robustness”, R2-1817397) in combination with Lee. Ericsson teaches RACH-less handover mechanisms and failure handling associated with such procedures, while Lee teaches uplink access resource allocation and fallback behavior when dedicated access resources are unavailable. One of the ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Ericsson and Lee to improve handover robustness and reliability when dedicated uplink access resources become unavailable during handover operations. Such combination merely represents the predictable use of known handover resource management techniques to improve reliability in wireless communication systems. Accordingly, Lee in view of Ericsson, continues to teach or at least render obvious the disputed limitation. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
Applicant argues that the cited NPL fails to disclose or suggest: “monitoring, by the terminal device when the predetermined condition is met and while the first timer is running, a first downlink channel that is used to dynamically schedule a third uplink resource”, as recited by claims 1 and 19. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated in NPL, “(Page 3, Section 2.3), In case there is an issue with the RACH-less part of the HO, the UE should perform the RACH procedure in the target cell instead of waiting for expiry of T304…. This fallback should then be performed before expiry of timer T304, which should still supervise the whole handover procedure.”.
The NPL therefore expressly teaches: 1) a handover failure condition associated with the RACH-less handover procedure; 2) operation while timer T304 is still running, and 3) fallback monitoring and access procedures performed before timer expiry.
Applicant argues that NPL allegedly fails to disclose the “predetermined condition” recited in amended claims 1 and 19. However, NPL expressly teaches a condition in which “there is an issue with the RACH-less part of the HO” and the handover “is not successful”. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand such failure condition to corresponds to the claimed predetermined condition associated with RACH-less handover failure.
Applicant additionally argues that NPL merely teaches performing a RACH procedure to access the target cell and allegedly does not disclose “monitoring the first downlink channel that is used to dynamically schedule the third uplink resource”. However, Applicant’s argument improperly isolates individual phrases while ignoring the overall teaching of the combined references and knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
NPL teaches maintaining handover supervision using timer T304 while fallback operations are performed. During fallback access procedures in LTE systems, the UE necessarily monitors downlink control signaling associated with uplink resource scheduling and access coordination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that performing fallback RACH access procedures before timer expiry inherently requires monitoring of downlink control information used to coordinate uplink access resources during the handover recovery process.
Moreover, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of NPL and Lee, not NPL alone. Lee teaches uplink access resource allocation, contention-free and contention-based fallback access procedures, and handover recovery operations utilizing uplink access resources. NPL teaches fallback behavior during RACH-less handover failure while timer T304 remains active. The combined teaching therefore render obvious monitoring downlink scheduling information associated with dynamically scheduled uplink resources during fallback handover operations.
Applicant’s arguments additionally attempt to import limitations into the claims that are not expressly recited. Amended claims 1 and 19 do not require any particular downlink channel format, specific scheduling message structure, or exclusive monitoring mechanism beyond the broadly recited functional limitation. The cited references collectively teach the claimed functionality.
Accordingly, Lee in view of Ericsson, continues to teach or at least render obvious the disputed limitation. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
Applicant argues that NPL fails to disclose the limitation recited in claim 15 “triggering, by the terminal device in response to expiry of the first timer, a random access procedure based on the one or more RACH parameters in the handover command” because NPL allegedly discloses initiating an RRC connection re-establishment procedure upon expiry of timer T304, whereas claim 15 recites triggering a random access procedure when the first timer expire. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated in NPL, “(Page 2, Section 2.2), At reception of the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message with MobilityControlInfo, the UE initiates the handover and then starts timer T304. Timer T304 is then used for supervision of the whole handover procedure and when it expires the UE initiates the RRC connection re-establishment procedure.”. NPL further discloses, “(Page 2, Section 2.2), If the UE is configured with a RACH-less HO in the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message (with MobilityControlInfo), the RACH-less configuration is valid until expiry of T304, i.e. during the whole handover.”.
NPL therefore expressly teaches: 1) starting and supervising a handover timer, 2) maintaining RACH-less handover operation during the timer period, and 3) initiating recovery procedures upon expiry of the timer.
Applicant argues that NPL allegedly fails to disclose “triggering the random access procedure when the first timer expires”. However, Applicant’s argument improperly focuses on the precise terminology “RRC connection re-establishment procedure” while ignoring the underlying LTE handover recovery operations inherently associated with such procedures.
One ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an RRC connection re-establishment procedure in LTE systems necessarily involves random access operations to re-establish communication with the network. Thus, NPL’s disclosure of initiating an RRC connection re-establishment procedure upon timer expiry reasonably teaches or at least suggest triggering random access recovery operations when the timer expires.
Applicant’s arguments also improperly attempt to narrowly construe the claims by requiring a specific recovery operation distinct from re-establishment procedures. Claim 15 does not exclude re-establishment operations involving random access functionality, nor does it require any particular signaling format or exact recovery sequence beyond the broadly recited triggering of a random access procedure upon timer expiry.
Accordingly, Lee in view of Ericsson, continues to teach or at least render obvious the limitations recited in claim 15. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson (“RACH-less handover robustness”; R2-1817397; 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2#104; Spokane, USA, 12th – 16th November 2018; from Applicant’s IDS; hereinafter NPL) in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. 2016/0029282 A1 hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, NPL teaches “a random access control method,” as [(See Title), RACH-less handover] “comprising: triggering, by a terminal device, a random access procedure when a predetermined condition is met,” [(Section 2.3, Page 2), In case there is an issue with the RACH-less part of the HO, the UE should perform the RACH procedure in the target cell] “wherein the predetermined condition comprises: a Random Access Channel-less (RACH-less) handover failure,” [(Section 2.1, Page 1), RACH-less HO was introduced in LTE Rel-14 in order to reduce the handover interruption time, which is achieved by skipping the PRACH preamble transmission and RAR messages in the target cell during the handover] “wherein the method further comprises: wherein the handover command comprises a first timer;” [(Section 2.2, Page 2), timer T304] “starting, by the terminal device, the first timer in response to receiving the handover command;” [(Section 2.2, Page 2), the UE initiates the handover and then starts timer T304] “and monitoring, by the terminal device when the predetermined condition is met and while the first timer is running, a first downlink channel that is used to dynamically schedule a third uplink resource” [(Section 2.3, Page 3), In case there is an issue with the RACH-less part of the HO, the UE should perform the RACH procedure in the target cell instead of waiting for expiry of T304…. This fallback should then be performed before expiry of timer T304, which should still supervise the whole handover procedure].
However, NPL does not specifically disclose wherein the RACH-less handover failure comprises an uplink resource for accessing a target network device indicated by RACH Skip information being unavailable; receiving, by the terminal device, a handover command.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches “wherein the RACH-less handover failure comprises an uplink resource for accessing a target network device indicated by RACH Skip information being unavailable” as [(Para. 0099), UE accesses the target cell via RACH following a contention-free procedure using a dedicated RACH preamble or following a contention-based procedure if dedicated RACH preambles are not available: the UE uses the dedicated preamble until the handover procedure is finished (successfully or unsuccessfully); If the RACH procedure towards the target cell is not successful within a certain time, the UE initiates radio link failure recovery using the best cell (Note: The Examiner is interpreting “dedicated RACH preambles” as the RACH Skip Information)] “receiving, by the terminal device, a handover command” [(Para. 0111), As soon as the source eNB receives the handover request acknowledge, or as soon as the transmission of the handover command is initiated in the downlink, data forwarding may be initiated].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of NPL with the modified system of Lee for performing partial handover procedure and data offloading to improve efficiency of limited radio resources of the 3GPP system by using available wireless communication system [Lee: Para. 0068-0069].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “wherein the handover command further comprises one or more of: the RACH Skip information and one or more RACH parameters” as [(Section 2.3, Page 2), It can be noted that the UE can already be provided with dedicated random access parameters in the same RRCConnectionReconfiguration message that configures a RACH-less handover].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically Lee teaches “wherein the RACH Skip information indicates an uplink resource for accessing a target network device,” as [(Para. 0099), UE accesses the target cell via RACH following a contention-free procedure using a dedicated RACH preamble or following a contention-based procedure if dedicated RACH preambles are not available] and the one or more RACH parameters comprise one or more of: a RACH resource and/or a dedicated preamble sequence” as [(Para. 0099), the UE uses the dedicated preamble until the handover procedure is finished].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “further comprising: transmitting, by the terminal device when there is an available first uplink resource in the uplink resource for accessing the target network device as comprised in the RACH Skip information, first indication information on the first uplink resource, wherein the first indication information indicates handover completion” as [(Section 2.1, Page 1), At a RACH-less HO the UE is therefore instead provided with TA value, initial power level and UL grants through the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message with MobilityControlInfo (the HO Command). The UL grants are then used for transmission of the RRCConnectionReconfigurationComplete message (HO Complete) in the target cell.].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “wherein said triggering, by the terminal device, the random access procedure when the predetermined condition is met comprises: triggering, by the terminal device, the random access procedure based on the one or more RACH parameters in the handover command when the predetermined condition is met” as [(Section 2.3, Page 3), An alternative for when to trigger the fallback in the UE is to introduce an additional timer for it, i.e. that the UE starts both T304 and such an additional timer when it receives the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message configuring RACH-less HO].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “further comprising: transmitting, by the terminal device when there is an available second uplink resource in the uplink resource for accessing the target network device as comprised in the RACH Skip information while the first timer is running, first indication information on the second uplink resource and stopping the first timer, wherein the first indication information indicates handover completion” as [(Section 2.1, Page 1), At a RACH-less HO the UE is therefore instead provided with TA value, initial power level and UL grants through the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message with MobilityControlInfo (the HO Command). The UL grants are then used for transmission of the RRCConnectionReconfigurationComplete message (HO Complete) in the target cell.].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “further comprising: triggering, by the terminal device, a random access procedure based on the one or more RACH parameters carried in the handover command when the third uplink resource dynamically scheduled by the first downlink channel is unavailable” as [(Section 2.3, Page 2), In case there is an issue with the RACH-less part of the HO, the UE should perform the RACH procedure in the target cell instead of waiting for expiry of T304. A fallback to using the RACH procedure (as for an ordinary handover) in the target cell should therefore be supported if the HO is not successful. This fallback should then be performed before expiry of timer T304, which should still supervise the whole handover procedure. The RACH-less part of the handover procedure should then be limited to a shorter time interval.].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “further comprising, when the terminal device triggers the random access procedure based on the one or more RACH parameters carried in the handover command: stopping the first timer” as [(Section 2.2, Page 2), At reception of the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message with MobilityControlInfo, the UE initiates the handover and then starts timer T304. Timer T304 is then used for supervision of the whole handover procedure and when it expires the UE initiates the RRC connection re-establishment procedure.].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “further comprising: keeping, by the terminal device, monitoring the first downlink channel when the third uplink resource dynamically scheduled by the first downlink channel is unavailable and the first timer has not expired” as [(Section 2.3, Page 2), This fallback should then be performed before expiry of timer T304, which should still supervise the whole handover procedure. The RACH-less part of the handover procedure should then be limited to a shorter time interval].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “further comprising: transmitting, by the terminal device when the third uplink resource dynamically scheduled by the first downlink channel is available and while the first timer is running, RRCReconfigurationComplete information on the third uplink resource, and stopping the first timer” as [(Section 2.1, Page 1), At a RACH-less HO the UE is therefore instead provided with TA value, initial power level and UL grants through the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message with MobilityControlInfo (the HO Command). The UL grants are then used for transmission of the RRCConnectionReconfigurationComplete message (HO Complete) in the target cell.].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “further comprising: triggering, by the terminal device in response to expiry of the first timer, a random access procedure based on the one or more RACH parameters in the handover command” as [(Section 2.3, Page 3), An alternative for when to trigger the fallback in the UE is to introduce an additional timer for it, i.e. that the UE starts both T304 and such an additional timer when it receives the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message configuring RACH-less HO].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “further comprising: receiving, by the terminal device, a fourth uplink resource dynamically scheduled by the first downlink channel” as [(Section 2.3, Page 2), It can be noted that the UE can already be provided with dedicated random access parameters in the same RRCConnectionReconfiguration message that configures a RACH-less handover].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of NPL and Lee, specifically NPL teaches “wherein said triggering, by the terminal device, the random access procedure when the predetermined condition is met comprises: triggering, by the terminal device, the random access procedure when the fourth uplink resource dynamically scheduled by the first downlink channel is unavailable” as [(Section 2.3, Page 2), In case there is an issue with the RACH-less part of the HO, the UE should perform the RACH procedure in the target cell instead of waiting for expiry of T304. A fallback to using the RACH procedure (as for an ordinary handover) in the target cell should therefore be supported if the HO is not successful. This fallback should then be performed before expiry of timer T304, which should still supervise the whole handover procedure. The RACH-less part of the handover procedure should then be limited to a shorter time interval.].
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including “a terminal device, comprising a processor and a memory” as [(Lee: Para. 0143), A UE or eNB or MME or PDN-GW 900 may include a processor 910, a memory 920] “for storing a computer program executable on the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory….” [(Lee: Para. 0143), The memory 920 is operatively coupled with the processor 910 and stores a variety of information to operate the processor 910.].
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
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 NATALI N PASCUAL PEGUERO whose telephone number is (571)272-4691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11AM-9PM.
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, ASAD M NAWAZ can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/NATALI PASCUAL PEGUERO/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights