DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Amendment submitted on 03/23/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 16, 19-20, 23, 26-27, 29, and 32-33 were amended, claims 18, 25, 31, and 35 were cancelled, and claims 1-15 were previously cancelled. Claims 16, 19-20, 23, 26-27, 29, and 32-33 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of their remarks, the Applicant points out that the final rejection dated 01/22/2026 contained a typographical error: the statement of rejection for claims 16-19, 21, 23-26, and 29-35 was formulated based on “Kadiri in view of Wang2” when in fact the rejection was based on Kadiri in view of Ishii. The Applicant is correct that Ishii was not properly cited; however, because of the request for continued examination and accompanying amendment filed on 03/23/2026, the propriety of the preceding final rejection cannot be evaluated or overturned.
Next, on page 10 of their remarks, the Applicant writes that “Kadiri teaches using RSRP and RSRQ as thresholds for the UE to determine or detect whether a link failure has occurred” and that “Kadiri either alone or as combined fails to teach or suggest that these measurements are then stored and transmitted within a report message to the target BS for an RLF that occurs during a successful handover [emphasis added]” (Applicant Remarks, p. 10).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this reading of Kadiri. Paragraph 0065 of Kadiri states that “when the UE detects the RLF ... after successfully connecting to the target BS ... the UE may transmit a radio link failure information message ... to the target BS” (Kadiri, 0065). This teaching corresponds directly to the contested claim limitation, meaning the obviousness rejection based on Kadiri is properly maintained.
Finally, later on page 10, the Applicant argues against the propriety of citing Teyeb to reject dependent claims, but these arguments are moot in light of newly cited art because Teyeb is not cited in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-21, 23-24, 26-27, 29-30, and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadiri et al. (US 2020/0022039 A1, hereinafter “Kadiri”) in view of Ishii et al. (US 2022/0330125 A1, hereinafter “Ishii”) and further in view of Dudda et al. (US 2016/0285679 A1, hereinafter “Dudda”).
As to Claims 16, 23, 29, and 33:
Kadiri describes a method to declare RLF failure during handover between base stations.
Specifically, Kadiri teaches:
Receiving, from a source base station (BS), a reconfiguration message related to a ... handover to a target BS
“As shown by reference number 306 [in Fig. 3], the UE may detect that a timer has expired prior to completing a handover of the UE from the source BS to the target BS. For example, the timer may include a T304 timer that the UE initiates based at least in part on receiving a radio resource control (RRC) connection reconfiguration message (e.g., that includes mobility control information) from the source BS” (Kadiri, 0058).
Here, “a radio resource control (RRC) connection reconfirmation message ... from the source BS” maps to “receiving, from a source base station (BS), a reconfiguration message”, and
“prior to completing a handover ... to the target BS” maps to “related to a ... handover to a target BS”.
The RLF occurs at a source cell during a successful ... handover
“[T]he UE detects the RLF (e.g. ... after successfully connecting to the target BS) ... [T]he UE may transmit a radio link failure information message (e.g., identifying the RLF on the source BS and identifying a source cell identifier for the source BS) to the target BS” (Kadiri, 0065).
Here, “the UE detects the RLF” maps to “the RLF occurs”,
“a source cell” maps to “at a source cell”, and
“after successfully connecting” maps to “during a successful ... handover” because it is clear from context the RLF occurs during handover and is detected afterwards.
Based on a length of time obtained by the UE and the time threshold information, or the first information, storing the second information related to the successful handover and the RLF
“[T]he UE may declare the RLF, or may not declare the RLF, based at least in part on detecting that the timer has expired” (Kadiri, 0059).
Here, “based at least in part on detecting that the timer has expired” maps to “based on a length of time obtained by the UE and the time threshold information” from the list of “based on a length of time obtained by the UE and the time threshold information, or the first information”, and
“declare the RLF” maps to “storing the second information related to the successful handover and the RLF” because declaring RLF entails storing information to transmit it.
Transmitting, to the target BS, a report message including the second information related to the successful handover and the RLF
“[W]hen the UE detects the RLF ... after successfully connecting to the target BS ... the UE may transmit a radio link failure information message (e.g., identifying the RLF on the source BS and identifying a source cell identifier for the source BS) to the target BS” (Kadiri, 0065).
Here, “transmit ... to the target BS” maps to “transmitting, to the target BS”,
“radio link failure information message” maps to “a report message”,
“identifying the RLF” maps to “including the second information related to the ... RLF”, and
“after successfully connecting” maps to “the successful handover”.
The second information related to the successful handover and the RLF includes an indication indicating that the RLF occurs at the source cell, if the RLF occurs at the source cell during the successful ... handover
“[W]hen the UE detects the RLF ... after successfully connecting to the target BS ... the UE may transmit a radio link failure information message (e.g., identifying the RLF on the source BS and identifying a source cell identifier for the source BS) to the target BS” (Kadiri, 0065).
Here, “a radio link failure information message” maps to “the second information related to the ... RLF”,
“after successfully connecting” maps to “the successful handover”,
“identifying a source cell identifier” maps to “includes an indication indicating that the RLF occurs at the source cell, if the RLF occurs at the source cell”, and
“after successfully connecting” maps to “during the successful ... handover” because it is clear from context that the RLF occurs during successful handover and is detected afterwards.
The second information related to the successful handover and the RLF includes ... measurement information on a cell of the UE
“In some aspects, the UE may determine whether the source connection between the UE and the source BS Is associated with a threshold connection condition. For example, a threshold connection condition may be based at least in part on a threshold reference signal received power (RSRP) associated with the source connection, a threshold reference signal received quality (RSRQ) associated with the source connection ... and/or the like” (Kadiri, 0060).
Here, “determine whether the source connection between the UE and the source BS is associated with a threshold connection configuration” maps to “the second information related to the successful handover and the RLF includes ... measurement information on a cell of the UE”.
The second information related to the successful handover and the RLF includes ... identification information on the source cell
“[W]hen the UE detects the RLF ... after successfully connecting to the target BS ... the UE may transmit a radio link failure information message (e.g., identifying the RLF on the source BS and identifying a source cell identifier for the source BS) to the target BS” (Kadiri, 0065).
Here, “a source cell identifier for the source BS” maps to “indication information on the source cell”.
Kadiri does not explicitly disclose:
A dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handover
The reconfiguration message includes time threshold information and first information indicating whether the UE stores second information related to ... radio link failure (RLF)
However, Ishii does describe methods to send a UE conditional handover configurations.
Specifically, Ishii teaches:
A dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handover
“3GPP RAN2 #106bis Contributions: R2-1906378 LTE mobility enhancements for eMBB HO using dual active protocol stack” (Ishii, 0330-0331).
Here, “HO” for “dual active protocol” maps to “a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover”.
The reconfiguration message includes time threshold information and first information indicating whether the UE stores second information related to ... radio link failure (RLF)
“Listing 9 shows an example format of RRCReconfiguration used for the non-conditional handover.... ReconfugationWithSync ... rlf-TimersAndConstants” (Ishii, 0176, Listing 9).
Here, “RRCReconfiguration” maps to “the reconfiguration message”,
“example format” maps to “includes”, and
“rlf-TimersAndConstants” maps to “time threshold information and first information indicating whether the UE stores second information related to ... radio link failure (RLF)” because configuring the RLF timer clearly indicates the UE should store a RLF report.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kadiri’s method for reporting a RLF that occurs during a successful handover to handover in a dual active protocol stack such as described in Ishii. The same type of failure can occur in a DAPS handover, so it would be obvious to report it as in Kadiri.
The combination of Kadiri and Ishii also does not explicitly disclose:
The second information related to ... the RLF includes: ...
Identification information on the UE, [and]
Identification information on a target cell
However, Dudda does describe a method to report radio link failure during handover.
Specifically, Dudda teaches:
The second information related to ... the RLF includes: ...
Identification information on the UE, [and]
Identification information on a target cell
Dudda describes a “UEInformationResponse message 404 [in Fig. 4]” which contains “a detailed RLF report” with “information such as ... E-CGI of the cell that the reestablishment attempt was made at” and “C-RNTI of the UE in last serving cell” (Dudda, 0078).
Here, “a detailed RLF report” corresponds to “the second information related to ... the RLF”,
“C-RNTI of the UE” corresponds to “identification information on the UE”, and
“E-CGI of the cell that the reestablishment attempt was made at” corresponds to “identification information of the target cell”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the information in the RLF report in Dudda in the analogous report in Kadiri. As noted in paragraph 0079 of Dudda, this information can enable the eNB to deduce the cause of the RLF.
Claim 23 describes the same subject matter as Claim 16 from the perspective of the base station.
Claim 29 describes the same subject matter as Claim 16 in the form of an apparatus claim that additionally requires:
A transceiver; and a processor coupled to the transceiver
“Fig. 11 is a schematic structural diagram of a communications apparatus according to an embodiment of this application” (Kadiri, 0067).
Here, “Transceiver” 1003 in Fig. 11 maps to “a transceiver”, and
“Processor” 1001 in Fig. 11 maps to “a processor coupled to the transceiver”.
Claim 33 descries the same subject matter as Claim 16 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the base station that additionally requires:
A transceiver; and a processor coupled to the transceiver
(“Fig. 11 is a schematic structural diagram of a communications apparatus according to an embodiment of this application” (Kadiri, 0067).
Here, “Transceiver” 1003 in Fig. 11 maps to “a transceiver”, and
“Processor” 1001 in Fig. 11 maps to “a processor coupled to the transceiver”).
As to Claim 17, 24, 30, and 34:
Kadiri teaches:
The RLF is due to expiry of a timer
“For example, the UE may declare the RLF ... based at least in part on detecting that the timer has expired” (Kadiri, 0059).
Here, “declare the RLF” maps to “the RLF”, and
“the timer has expired” maps to “due to expiry of a timer”.
Claim 24 describes the same subject matter as Claim 17 from the perspective of the network device.
Claim 30 describes the same subject matter as Claim 17 in the form of an apparatus claim.
Claim 34 describes the same subject matter as Claim 17 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device.
As to Claims 19 and 26:
From the list of:
The measurement information on the cell of the UE includes at least one of:
Reference signal receiving power (RSRP) of the source cell or the target cell,
Reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ) of the source cell or the target cell, or
Signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) of the source cell or the target cell
Kadiri at least teaches:
The measurement information on the cell of the UE includes ... reference signal receiving power (RSRP) of the source cell or the target cell,
“In some aspects, the UE may determine whether the source connection between the UE and the source BS Is associated with a threshold connection condition. For example, a threshold connection condition may be based at least in part on a threshold reference signal received power (RSRP) associated with the source connection, a threshold reference signal received quality (RSRQ) associated with the source connection ... and/or the like” (Kadiri, 0060).
Here, “a threshold connection condition may be ... reference signal received power (RSRP)” maps to “the measurement information on the cell of the UE includes ... reference signal receiving power”, and
“associated with the source connection” maps to “of the source cell” from the list of “of the source cell or the target cell”.
The measurement information on the cell of the UE includes ... reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ) of the source cell or the target cell
“In some aspects, the UE may determine whether the source connection between the UE and the source BS Is associated with a threshold connection condition. For example, a threshold connection condition may be based at least in part on a threshold reference signal received power (RSRP) associated with the source connection, a threshold reference signal received quality (RSRQ) associated with the source connection ... and/or the like” (Kadiri, 0060).
Here, “a threshold connection condition may be ... reference signal received quality (RSRQ)” maps to “the measurement information on the cell of the UE includes ... reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ)”, and
“associated with the source connection” maps to “of the source cell” from the list of “of the source cell or the target cell”.
Claim 26 describes the same subject matter as Claim 19 from the perspective of the base station.
As to Claims 20 and 27:
Kadiri teaches:
The indication information on the type of the RLF indicates whether the RLF occurs at the source cell
(“In some aspects, the UE may transmit a radio link failure information message (e.g., identifying the RLF on the source BS)” (Kadiri, 0065).
Here, “a radio link failure message” maps to “the indication information on the type of the RLF”, and
“identifying the RLF on the source BS” maps to “indicates whether the RLF occurs at the source cell”).
The combination of Kadiri and Ishii does not explicitly disclose:
The identification information on the UE includes a cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI)
However, Dudda does teach:
The identification information on the UE includes a cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI)
Dudda describes a “UEInformationResponse message 404 [in Fig. 4]” which contains “a detailed RLF report” with the “C-RNTI of the UE in last serving cell” (Dudda, 0078).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the information in the RLF report in Dudda in the analogous report in Kadiri. As noted in paragraph 0079 of Dudda, this information can enable the eNB to deduce the cause of the RLF.
Claim 27 contains the same subject matter as Claim 20 from the perspective of the base station.
As to Claim 21:
Kadiri teaches:
Detecting a link failure
“[T]he UE detects the RLF (e.g. ... after successfully connecting to the target BS) ... [T]he UE may transmit a radio link failure information message (e.g., identifying the RLF on the source BS and identifying a source cell identifier for the source BS) to the target BS” (Kadiri, 0065).
Here, “the UE detects the RLF” maps to “detecting a link failure).
Transmitting, to the target BS, a report message related to the link failure
“[T]he UE detects the RLF (e.g. ... after successfully connecting to the target BS) ... [T]he UE may transmit a radio link failure information message (e.g., identifying the RLF on the source BS and identifying a source cell identifier for the source BS) to the target BS” (Kadiri, 0065).
Here, “the UE may transmit a radio link failure information message ... to the target BS” maps to “transmitting, to the target BS, a report message related to the link failure”.
As to Claim 32:
From the list of:
The measurement information on the cell of the UE includes at least one of:
Reference signal receiving power (RSRP) of the source cell or the target cell,
Reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ) of the source cell or the target cell, or
Signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) of the source cell or the target cell
Kadiri at least teaches:
The measurement information on the cell of the UE includes ... reference signal receiving power (RSRP) of the source cell or the target cell,
“In some aspects, the UE may determine whether the source connection between the UE and the source BS Is associated with a threshold connection condition. For example, a threshold connection condition may be based at least in part on a threshold reference signal received power (RSRP) associated with the source connection, a threshold reference signal received quality (RSRQ) associated with the source connection ... and/or the like” (Kadiri, 0060).
Here, “a threshold connection condition may be ... reference signal received power (RSRP)” maps to “the measurement information on the cell of the UE includes ... reference signal receiving power”, and
“associated with the source connection” maps to “of the source cell” from the list of “of the source cell or the target cell”.
The measurement information on the cell of the UE includes ... reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ) of the source cell or the target cell
“In some aspects, the UE may determine whether the source connection between the UE and the source BS Is associated with a threshold connection condition. For example, a threshold connection condition may be based at least in part on a threshold reference signal received power (RSRP) associated with the source connection, a threshold reference signal received quality (RSRQ) associated with the source connection ... and/or the like” (Kadiri, 0060).
Here, “a threshold connection condition may be ... reference signal received quality (RSRQ)” maps to “the measurement information on the cell of the UE includes ... reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ)”, and
“associated with the source connection” maps to “of the source cell” from the list of “of the source cell or the target cell”.
The indication information on the type of the RLF indicates whether the RLF occurs at the source cell
“In some aspects, the UE may transmit a radio link failure information message (e.g., identifying the RLF on the source BS)” (Kadiri, 0065).
Here, “a radio link failure message” maps to “the indication information on the type of the RLF”, and
“identifying the RLF on the source BS” maps to “indicates whether the RLF occurs at the source cell”.
Indication information indicating that the source link failure occurs after the successful access of the UE to the target cell
Kadiri teaches that if “the UE detects the RLF ... after successfully connecting to the target BS”, then “the UE may transmit a radio link failure information message (e.g., identifying the RLF on the source BS” (Kadiri, 0065).
Here, “a radio link failure message ... identifying the RLF on the source BS” corresponds to “indication information indicating that the source link failure occurs after the successful access of the UE to the target cell”.
Kadiri does not explicitly disclose:
The reconfiguration message includes indication information indicating that the source link failure occurs
However, Ishii does teach:
The reconfiguration message includes indication information indicating that the source link failure occurs
Ishii describes “a reconfiguration message comprising one or more conditional handover configurations” including “at least one triggering condition” for “detecting a radio link failure” (Ishii, 0012).
Here, “at least one triggering condition” for “detecting a radio link failure” corresponds to “indication information indicating that the source link failure occurs”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kadiri’s method for reporting a RLF that occurs during a successful handover to handover in a dual active protocol stack such as described in Ishii. The same type of failure can occur in a DAPS handover, so it would be obvious to report it as in Kadiri.
The combination of Kadiri and Ishii also does not explicitly disclose:
The identification information on the UE includes a cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI)
However, Dudda does teach:
The identification information on the UE includes a cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI)
Dudda describes a “UEInformationResponse message 404 [in Fig. 4]” which contains “a detailed RLF report” with the “C-RNTI of the UE in last serving cell” (Dudda, 0078).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the information in the RLF report in Dudda in the analogous report in Kadiri. As noted in paragraph 0079 of Dudda, this information can enable the eNB to deduce the cause of the RLF.
Claim(s) 22 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadiri (US 2020/0022039 A1) in view of Ishii (US 2022/0330125 A1) and Dudda (US 2016/0285679 A1) and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2022/0264414 A1, hereinafter “Hu”).
As to Claims 22 and 28:
The combination of Kadiri and Ishii does not explicitly disclose:
The reconfiguration message includes at least one of:
Identification information on a reestablished cell,
Indication information indicating a type of a link failure, or
Indication information indicating that the source link failure occurs after the successful access of the UE to the target cell
However, Hu does describe a method to optimize UE mobility.
Specifically, Hu teaches:
The reconfiguration message includes ... identification information on a reestablished cell,
“The UE performs an RRC reestablishment procedure (the UE performs cell selection in the reestablishment procedure), and the UE includes an identifier of a cell obtained through cell selection by the UE in the connection failure information” (Hu, 0185).
Here, “the connection failure information” in “an RRC reestablishment procedure” maps to “the reconfiguration message”,
“includes” maps to “includes”, and
“an identifier of a cell obtained through cell selection” maps to “identification information on a reestablished cell”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hu’s practice of indicating the ID of the reestablished cell into Kadiri’s method for reporting radio link failure. The new cell a UE is connected to is relevant to handover failure, so it makes sense to include its identity in a report.
Claim 28 describes the same subject matter as Claim 22 from the perspective of the base station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
BENJAMIN PETER WELTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2477
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights