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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is response to the application filed 02/22/2023 havingclaims 1-20 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
2. Application filed on 10/31/2022 is a 371 of PCT/US21/29659 04/28/2021 PCT/US21/29659 has PRO 63/018,499 04/30/2020 are acknowledged.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 10/31/2022 and these drawings are accepted.
4. Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS filed.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Oath/Declaration filed on 10/31/2022 is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites, “by the processing hardware”, make correction as UE. Appropriate correction is required.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-13, 15-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub US 20150195762 A1 to Watanabe et al (hereinafter Watanabe) in view of US PG Pub US 20210289553 9A1 to OZTURK et al (hereinafter OZTURK).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-16, 18-20 i are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication US 20210289553 A1 OZTURK et al. (Hereinafter “OZTURK ").
As per claim 1, Watanabe teaches a method for supporting a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover in a user equipment (UE) connected to a first base station of a radio access network (RAN) (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11, supporting a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover in a user equipment (UE) connected to a first base station of a radio access network (RAN)), the method comprising: . attempting, by the UE, to connect to a second base station of the RAN during the DAPS handover (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11, UE attempts to connect to a target base station during the DAPS handover); detecting, by the UE, a potential failure associated with a radio connection to the first base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11, when UE detects connection problem with the source base station associated with initial connection ).; detecting, by the UE, a failure to connect to the second base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,, UE initiates connection with target base station and detects a radio link failure to connect to the second base station); and initiating, by the UE, a procedure to re-establish the radio connection (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11, UE tries to reestablishment procedure with current base station ).; transmitting, by the UE to the RAN, a radio link failure report including an indication of the failure to connect to the second base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,, transmitting, by the UE to the RAN, a radio link failure report including an indication of the failure to connect to the second base station). 20230134552
As per claim 2, OZTURK teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting of the potential failure includes: detecting the potential failure before detecting the failure to connect to the second base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,,,detecting the potential failure before detecting the failure to connect to the second base station).
As per claim 4, OZTURK teaches teaches the method of claim 2, OZTURK teaches further comprising: starting, by the processing hardware, a timer in response to detecting the potential failure (para 0061, timer is associated potential failure); and wherein detecting the failure to connect to the second base station includes: detecting the failure to connect to the second base station while the timer is running (para [0061, the failure to connect to the second base station while the timer is running).
As per claim 5, OZTURK teaches teaches the method of claim 2, teaches wherein the detecting of the potential failure includes: detecting a radio link failure with the first base station before detecting the failure to connect to the second base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,, detecting a radio link failure with the first base station before detecting the failure to connect to the second base station). 20230134552
As per claim 6, OZTURK teaches teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the detecting of the potential failure includes: detecting a radio link failure with the first base station after the detecting of the failure to connect to the second base station and before the reporting to the first base station of the failure to connect to the second base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,, detecting a radio link failure with the first base station after the detecting of the failure to connect to the second base station and before the reporting to the first base station of the failure to connect to the second base station ); and the detecting of the radio link failure includes: detecting a failure to successfully transmit a dedicated message for reporting the failure to connect ((para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,, when UE tries to connect to the target base station and detecting a failure to successfully transmit a dedicated message for reporting the failure to connect).
As per claim 7, OZTURK teaches teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting of the radio link failure report includes: transmitting an rlf-Report including the indication (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,, transmitting an rlf-Report including the indication).
As per claim 8, OZTURK teaches teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the transmitting of the rlf-Report includes: transmitting the rlf-Report including a connectionFailureType field set to a value that indicates the failure to connect to the second base station ((para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,,, transmitting the rlf-Report including a connectionFailureType field set to a value that indicates the failure to connect to the second base station).
As per claim 9, OZTURK teaches teaches the method of claim 1,OZTURK teaches wherein the detecting of the failure to connect includes: detecting a failure of the DAPS handover ((para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,,, detecting a failure of the DAPS handover).
As per claim 10, OZTURK teaches a user equipment (UE) configured to support a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover when connected to a first base station of a radio access network (RAN), the UE comprising: processing hardware configured to implement; a first module to provide a radio interface ((para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,UE ) ; and a second module configured to:;, attempt to connect to a second base station of the RAN during the DAPS handover (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11,,, initiates connection with target base station during the DAPS handover). detect a potential failure associated with a radio connection to the first base station, detect a failure to connect to the second base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11, detect radio link failure associated with first base and detect a failure to connect to the second base station);, and initiate a procedure to re-establish the radio connection ((para [0094- 0098], fig. 11, initiate a procedure to re-establish the radio connection ).
As per claim 11, OZTURK teaches a method for network optimization in a first base station in communication with a user equipment (UE) via a radio link, the method comprising: transmitting, by the first base station, a configuration according to which the UE is to connect to a second base station during a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover procedure (para [[0094- 0098], fig. 11 base station transmitting information to the UE handover information to connect to a second base station during a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover procedure );receiving, by the first base station, an indication that the UE detected a failure of the radio link and that the UE failed to connect to the second base station ((para [0094- 0098], fig. 11, first base station receives indication that UE detected a failure of the radio link and that the UE failed to connect to the second base station); and performing, by the first base station, a network optimization procedure based on the indication (para [[0094- 0098], fig. 11, performing, by the first base station, a network optimization procedure based on the indication);.
As per claim 12, OZTURK teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the receiving of the indication includes at least one of: receiving, from the UE a request to re-establish a radio connection with the UE, the request including a failure cause set to radio link failure (RLF); or receiving, from the second base station, a message indicating that the second base station received a request to re-establish a radio connection with the UE, the request including a failure cause set to RLF (para 0094- 0098], fig. 11,, receiving, from the UE a request to re-establish a radio connection with the UE, the request including a failure cause set to radio link failure (RLF);).
As per claim 13, OZTURK teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the receiving of the indication includes: receiving, from the UE, a radio link failure report including an indication of the failure to connect to the second base station ((para 0094- 0098], fig. 11,, receiving, from the UE, a radio link failure report including an indication of the failure to connect to the second base station ).
As per claim 15, OZTURK teaches a first base station configured to implement network optimization when in a communication with a user equipment (UE), the first base station comprising processing hardware configured to implement a first module to provide a radio interface (para 0094- 0098], fig. 11,,, communication with a user equipment (UE), the first base station comprising processing hardware configured to implement a first module to provide a radio interface); and a second module configured to: transmit a configuration according to which the UE is to connect to a second base station during a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover procedure (para 0094- 0098], fig. 11,, base station transmitting information to the UE handover information to connect to a second base station during a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover procedure )receive an indication that the UE detected a failure of the radio link and that the UE failed to connect to the second base station and perform a network optimization procedure based on the indication ((para 0094- 0098], fig. 11,,, first base station receives indication that UE detected a failure of the radio link and that the UE failed to connect to the second base station and that the UE failed to connect to the second base station and perform a network optimization procedure based on the indication).
As per claim 16, OZTURK teaches the UE of claim 10, wherein to detect the potential failure, the second module is configured to: detect the potential failure before detecting the failure to connect to the second base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11detect the potential failure before detecting the failure to connect to the second base station ).
As per claim 18, OZTURK teaches the UE of claim 17, OZTURK teaches wherein the second module is further configured to: start a timer in response to detecting the potential failure (para 0094- 0098], fig. 11, timer is associated potential failure);; and wherein detecting the failure to connect to the second base station includes detecting the failure to connect to the second base station while the timer is running (para [0158-0160], fig. 13, the failure to connect to the second base station while the timer is running).
As per claim 19, OZTURK teaches the UE of claim 10, wherein to detect the potential failure, the second module is configured to: detect a radio link failure with the first base station before detecting the failure to connect to the second base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11], detecting a radio link failure with the first base station before detecting the failure to connect to the second base station)..
As per claim 20, OZTURK teaches the UE of claim 10, wherein the detecting of the potential failure includes: detecting a radio link failure with the first base station after the detecting of the failure to connect to the second base station and before the reporting to the first base station of the failure to connect to the second base station (para [0094- 0098], fig. 11], detecting a radio link failure with the first base station after the detecting of the failure to connect to the second base station and before the reporting to the first base station of the failure to connect to the second base station );; and the detecting of the radio link failure includes detecting a failure to successfully transmit a dedicated message for reporting the failure to connect ((para [0094- 0098], fig. 11], when UE tries to connect to the target base station and detecting a failure to successfully transmit a dedicated message for reporting the failure to connect).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 3, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OZTURK further view of US PG Pub US 20160302113 A1 to HWANG et al (hereinafter HWANG).
As per claim 3, OZTURK teaches teaches the method of claim 2, HWANG teaches wherein the detecting of the potential failure includes: detecting a synchronization error related to the radio connection (para [0042], detecting a synchronization error related to the radio connection ). 20160302113
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of OZTURK by detecting a synchronization error related to the radio connection as suggested by HWANG, this modification would benefit OZTURK for efficient data transfer in a handover to in a mobile communication network system.
As per claim 17, OZTURK teaches the UE of claim 10, HWANG teaches wherein to detect the potential failure, the second module is configured to: detect a synchronization error related to the radio connection (para [0042], detecting a synchronization error related to the radio connection )..
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 3.
5. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OZTURK further view of US PG Pub US 20220264414 A1 to Hu et al (hereinafter Hu).
As per claim 14, OZTURK teaches the method of claim 11, Hu teaches wherein the performing of the network optimization includes: performing a Mobility Robustness Optimization (MRO) (para [0006].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of OZTURK by detecting a synchronization error related to the radio connection as suggested by Hu, this modification would benefit OZTURK for better handover process to in a mobile communication network system.
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of applicant's argument regarding claim 1, applicant argues that, "released" (par. 97)," but Ozturk does not disclose transmitting specifically a radio link failure report, much less a radio link failure report including an indication of the failure to connect to the second base station". Applicant's argument have been considered but are not persuasive. Ozturk in para [0097-0098], fig. 11, teaches a mechanism in which UE is trying to connect to a second base station and detecting a failure to connect to the second base station 1104, after determining that a failure occurs for connection, UE determines LBT failure in transmission to the base station 1104, so transmitting failure report such as LBT failure in transmission to the base stion 1104 is transmitted as a report to source base station.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20190109028 A1; US Patent Publication US 20130148502 A1, US Patent Publication US 20210185578 A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM 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.
/ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467