Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-13 and 15-21 are pending
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6 of Remarks, Applicant argued that the 2ndary reference Teyeb does not disclose the required claim limitations:
PNG
media_image1.png
295
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require suspending any messages, much less an uplink message. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., suspending any uplink messages …) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that:
PNG
media_image2.png
157
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite the recovery of a radio connection with the MN. Instead, the claim only asks for “detecting, by the UE, after determining and before radio connection is recovered, an ULNAS message” In other words, the claim only requires detecting an ULNAS message. The recovery itself is not positively claimed. This is a very important distinction. Furthermore, the word “detect” in this claim may not mean detect at all. The claimed subject matter is based on Fig. 20 of the current application, reproduced below. Fig. 20, step 2008 shows “is a UL NAS message or UE initiated MN UL RRC message to be transmitted”. And if yes, step 2010 transmits the message, reciting the claim language verbatim. It appears that detect may simply mean determine a UL NAS message is to be transmitted. Corresponding disclosure does not spell out any conditions for the determination in step 2008, and it appears step 2008 has no direct relationship with recovery of radio connections to MN, before or after. Therefore Applicant’s argument here is not supported by the original disclosure.
Fig. 20 of Current Application
PNG
media_image3.png
556
547
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Written Description for Fig 20.
PNG
media_image4.png
370
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Finally, Applicant argued against the previous Examiner’s reason to combine. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous examiner’s reason to combine the two references is reasonable. This will be further explained below. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
However, Teyeb is not a good reference. It does not expressly teach UL NAS. Examiner discovered a better reference, Rugeland, US 2021/0176692, and will proceed with a new ground of rejection based on the BRI explained earlier. This is a second non-final.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claims 1, 2-4, 8-9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200059395 A1), hereinafter “Chen”, in view of Rugeland. (US 2021/0176692) hereinafter “Rugeland”.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method for uplink transmission in a user equipment (UE) communicating in dual connectivity (DC) with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN), (Chen, Fig. 1, UE, MN and SN) the method comprising:
determining, by the UE, that a radio connection with the MN has failed (Chen, Fig. 1, Step 170, MN Link failure is detected);
transmitting, by the UE to the SN, an indication of the failed radio connection, using radio resources of the SN (Chen, Fig. 1, Step 180, MN Failure Report, through SN Path of split SRB);
and transmitting, by the UE and after the radio connection with the MN is recovered, the message to the MN, using radio resources of the MN. (Chen, Fig. 5, step 560, PP92-93)
However, Chen does not disclose detecting, by the UE, after the determining and before the radio connection is recovered, an uplink non-access stratum (NAS) (UL NAS) message for transmission to the MN;
Also Chen transmits to the MN after radio connection is recovered, Chen does not explicitly transmit an UL NAS message.
Rugeland, in the same field of Dual Connectivity (DC), teaches detecting, by the UE, after the determining and before the radio connection is recovered (Rugeland, PP575 makes clear the steps set forth are for reconnection re-establishment requests, hence before radio connection is recover; PP586 teaches conditions for sending UL NAS messages, since neither the claims nor the specification define any criteria for making this determination, this is sufficient to meet the claims), an uplink non-access stratum (NAS) (UL NAS) message for transmission to the MN (Rugeland, PP587); transmitting UL NAS to the MN (Rugeland, Fig. 10, Step 1006, transmit RCC Connection Re-establishment Request, that would include the UL NAS described earlier, PP 547).
Also note that Rugeland teaches determining, by the UE, that a radio connection with the MN has failed (Rugeland, Fig. 10, step 1002, Fig 11, step 1102, Fig. 12, step 1202, Fig. 13, step 1302, Fig. 14, step 1402, Fig. 15, step 1502, Fig. 16, step 1602, Fig. 17, step 1702; the purpose here is to illustrate that Rugeland offers several variations of his solutions, that Applicant should amend around)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Chen with the teachings of Rugeland. Because Rugeland offers solutions to inter-radio access technology (Inter-RAT), which is related to dual connectivity, that confer several benefits in the case of radio link failure. (Rugeland, PP05-10)
For claim 15, Chen teaches a UE comprising processing hardware configured to implement: a first component to support a radio interface; and a second component configured to: (Chen, Fig. 8 shows a transceiver, a memory and a processor)
determine that a radio connection with the MN has failed, (Chen, Fig. 1, Step 170, MN Link failure is detected);
transmit, to the SN, an indication of the failed radio connection, using radio resources of the SN, (Chen, Fig. 1, Step 180, MN Failure Report, through SN Path of split SRB);
transmit, after the radio connection with the MN is recovered, the message to the MN, using radio resources of the MN. (Chen, Fig. 5, step 560, PP92-93)
Chen does not teach detect, after the determining and before the radio connection is recovered, an uplink non-access stratum (NAS) (UL NAS) message for transmission to the MN. Also Chen transmits to the MN after radio connection is recovered, Chen does not explicitly transmit an UL NAS message.
Rugeland, in the same field of Dual Connectivity (DC), teaches detect, by the UE, after the determining and before the radio connection is recovered (Rugeland, PP575 makes clear the steps set forth are for reconnection re-establishment requests, hence before radio connection is recover; PP586 teaches conditions for sending UL NAS messages, since neither the claims nor the specification define any criteria for making this determination, this is sufficient to meet the claims), an uplink non-access stratum (NAS) (UL NAS) message for transmission to the MN (Rugeland, PP587); transmitting UL NAS to the MN (Rugeland, Fig. 10, Step 1006, transmit RCC Connection Re-establishment Request, that would include the UL NAS described earlier, PP 547).
Also note that Rugeland teaches determine, by the UE, that a radio connection with the MN has failed (Rugeland, Fig. 10, step 1002, Fig 11, step 1102, Fig. 12, step 1202, Fig. 13, step 1302, Fig. 14, step 1402, Fig. 15, step 1502, Fig. 16, step 1602, Fig. 17, step 1702; the purpose here is to illustrate that Rugeland offers several variations of his solutions, that Applicant should amend around)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Chen with the teachings of Rugeland. Because Rugeland offers solutions to inter-radio access technology (Inter-RAT), which is related to dual connectivity, that confer several benefits in the case of radio link failure. (Rugeland, PP05-10)
For claim 2, Chen and Rugeland teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing, by the UE, a NAS procedure with a core network; wherein the UL NAS message is associated with the NAS procedure (Regeland, PP84 to 86 teaches the re-establishment procedure is sent to the core network).
For claim 3, Chen and Rugeland teach the method of claim 2, wherein the performing of the NAS procedure includes performing an evolved packet system (EPS) mobility management (EMM) procedure (Reguland, PP02 teaches EPS, PP184 mentions MME, ) or an EPS session management (ESM) procedure.
For claim 4, Chen and Rugeland teach the method of claim 2, wherein the performing of the NAS procedure includes performing a 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure or a 5G session management (5GSM) procedure.
For claim 8, Chen and Rugeland teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the processing hardware from the SN, an RRC reconfiguration message related to the failed radio connection (Chen, Fig. 3, step 390, receiving MN command from SN,); and determining, based on the RRC reconfiguration message, whether the UE is to resume uplink transmissions using radio resources of a master cell group (MCG). (the claim does not spell out how the determining is made based on RRC message, Chen, Fig. 5, step 530, feedback is received? Is the determination)
For claim 9, Chen and Rugeland teach the method of claim 8, further comprising: resuming the uplink transmissions using the radio resources of the MCG in response to determining that the RRC reconfiguration message indicates mobility for a primary cell (PCell). (Chen, PP89 discusses connect to PCell after RLF as part of the reestablishment procedure)
For claim 13. Chen and Rugeland teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the radio connection has failed includes detecting a radio link failure (RLF) on an MCG link (Rugeland, PP10 detects a RLF on the MCG), or detecting a failure of a reconfiguration procedure related to an MCG link.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200059395 A1), hereinafter “Chen”, in view of Rugeland. (US 2021/0176692) hereinafter “Rugeland”, further in view of Futaki, US 2021/0212131.
For claim 5, Chen and Rugeland teach, the method of any of claims 1. Chen and Rugeland do not teach wherein the transmitting of the NAS uplink message to the MN includes transmitting a ULInformation Transfer message including the UL NAS message.
Futaki, in the analogous art of dual connectivity, teaches transmitting a ULInformation Transfer message including the UL NAS message. (Futaki, PP 89 teaches UL information transfer message sent on UL NAS message )
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Rugeland with the teachings of Futaki. Because Rugeland teaches UL NAS messages and Futaki only elaborates on what is already well known in the art: UL Information Transfer message.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200059395 A1), hereinafter “Chen”, in view of Rugeland. (US 2021/0176692) hereinafter “Rugeland”, further in view of Sharma, US 2020/0275519.
For claim 10, Chen and Rugeland teach the method of claim 8. Chen does not teach wherein the RRC reconfiguration includes a MobilityControlInfo information element (IE) or a ReconfigurationWithSync IE.
However in the analogous art of dual connectivity, Sharma teaches the RRC reconfiguration includes a MobilityControlInfo information element (IE) or a ReconfigurationWithSync IE. (Sharma, PP122, Fig. 6, step 616).
For claim 12, Chen and Rugeland teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing, by the processing hardware, an MCG fast recovery procedure (Chen, PP01 mentions Supporting Fast Recover of MCG Link; since MCG fast recover procedure is defined further by the claims, this will be explained), including: transmitting an MCGFailurelnformation message, as the indication of the dialed radio connection (the claim does not define what is inside the MCG Failure Information message, Chen, Fig. 3 shows a MN Failure Report, PP03 seems to use master node and master cell group interchangeably);
Chen and Rugeland do not teach receiving, from the MN via a split radio bearer leg associated with the SN, a request for RRC reconfiguration.
However in the analogous art of dual connectivity, Hwang teaches receiving, from the MN via a split radio bearer leg associated with the SN, a request for RRC reconfiguration (Sharma, Fig. 8, step 820, PP 143).
For claims 10 and 12, the reason to combine is as follows, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application, to modify the re-establishment procedures of Chen and Rugeland with the teachings of Sharma to improve dual connectivity (Sharma, PP07-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 are allowed. Applicant is recommended to cancel claims 1 to 15 to bring this application in condition for allowance. Applicant is encouraged to pursue claims 1 to 15 in a continuation. In hindsight, claims 1 and 15, vs. 16 are almost like two inventions. A restriction is too late at this stage. Claims 1 and 15 involves detecting radio link failure at the UE and sending an UL NAS message. Claim 16 is about detecting a radio link failure at the MN and sending a DL NAS massage. The two inventions can operate independently.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
For claim 16, Chen teaches a method for downlink transmission in a first base station operating as a master node (MN) to provide, with a second base station operating as a secondary node (SN), dual connectivity (DC) to a UE, (Chen, Fig. 1, UE, MN and SN) . Chen does not teach detecting, by the MN, that a radio connection between the MN and the UE has failed. It appears that the prior art mostly teaches the UE detecting radio link failure. For example, the Hwang reference, 20200213882, Fig. 6 to Fig. 8. There appears to be no prior art after exhaustive search that teaches MN detecting radio link failure. Examiner could interpret MN detecting radio link failure as MN receiving radio link failure notification from UE.
Still, it is difficult to find prior art that teaches: “preventing, by the MN, the MN from transmitting the DL NAS message to the UE until the radio connection has recovered; and
in response to detecting that the radio connection has recovered, transmitting the DL NAS message to the UE, using radio resources of the MN.’
DL NAS message is well known in the art, See Futaki, US 20210212131, Fig. 3. There does not appear to be any prior art about DL NAS in the context of hand over, or hand off, or radio link failure.
Finally, the rejection of claim 16 in the previous office action is based on a combination of four references. The combination as presented is not reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of current application.
Given these considerations, claim 16 and its dependent claims are allowed. These are separate rationales than presented by the Applicant. Applicant did not present any direct arguments against the rejection of claim 16, per se.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rugeland, US 2022/0007255, PP28 to 46 is very similar to the 2nd reference relied upon earlier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles C Jiang whose telephone number is (571)270-7191. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 am to 5 pm Eastern Time.
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, TC Group director, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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.
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights