DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues in substance that combined system of Park and Qu “an associated indication that the reestablishment was successful”, (see Remarks pages 9-11)
In response to argument, Examiner respectfully disagree. Newly cited prior art da Silva discloses report comprising indication re-establishment successful transmitted by UE [0007, 0112, 0018]
Hence combined teachings of Park, da Silva, and Qu teaches every limitation as claimed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (USPN 20190141592) in view of da Silva et al (USPN 20150208295) and Qu et al (USPN 20230040079).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses
a wireless device comprising processing circuitry operable to: (wireless device, FIG. 4 #406, comprising processor, FIG. 4 #408, operable to [0179-0180]
determine the wireless device should perform a connection reestablishment procedure (wireless device experiences connection failure with gNB1 [0346-0349, 0359], FIGs. 25-29
perform a random access procedure related to the connection reestablishment procedure (wireless device performs random access procedure associated with connection reestablishment procedure [0349], FIG. 29
determine whether the reestablishment procedure was successful (wireless device establishes RRC connection with second base station via second cell [0349], FIG. 25
when the reestablishment procedure is determined to be successful, storing a first set of information related to the reestablishment procedure (after performing RRC connection reestablishment, wireless device performs calculations for report including RSRP, RSRQ, averaged/summed RSRP, beam information of reestablishment cell, random access attempt types [0350-0353]
wherein the first set of information comprises a cell identifier of a cell in which the reestablishment procedure was performed successfully (report comprises reestablishment cell identifier [0352], FIG. 25
a second set of information related to the reestablishment procedure different from the first set of information, irrespective of whether the reestablishment procedure is determined to be successful (slice identifier(s) of one or more network slices and previous cell identifier that served the wireless device from first base station and cell identifier [0350, 0352]
transmitting one or more reports that include the first set of information and the second set of information to a network node (wireless device transmits report comprising multiple sets of information to gNB2 [0349-0355, 0357], FIG. 25
Park does not expressly disclose and an associated indication that the reestablishment was successful
da Silva discloses an associated indication that the reestablishment was successful (report comprising indication re-establishment successful transmitted by UE [0007, 0112, 0018]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “an associated indication that the reestablishment was successful” as taught by da Silva into Park’s system with the motivation to clearly indicate connection re-establishment by UE without any ambiguity (da Silva, [0007, 0112, 0018])
Combined system of Park and da Silva does not expressly disclose storing a second set of information related to the establishment procedure
Qu discloses storing a second set of information related to the establishment procedure (terminal device storing RACH reports comprising signal quality and other information [0021-0023], Table 4
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “storing a second set of information related to the establishment procedure” as taught by Qu into combined system of Park and da Silva with the motivation to provide all available to new base station with a goal of preventing future RLF.
Claim 1 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 8, Park discloses “storing the first set of information in a radio link failure (RLF) report; storing the second set of information comprises storing the second set of information in the RLF report; and transmitting one or more reports to the network node comprises transmitting the RLF report” RLF report transmitted to gNB2 comprises RSRP, RSRQ, averaged/summed RSRP, beam information of reestablishment cell and slice identifier(s) of one or more network slices and previous cell identifier that served the wireless device from first base station and cell identifier [0350-0352], FIG. 25
Regarding claims 3, 9, Park discloses “storing the first set of information comprises storing the first set of information in a random access (RA) report; (storing random access attempt information in random access report [0353, 0374, 0374]
storing the second set of information comprises storing the second set of information in a radio link failure (RLF) report; (storing slice identifier(s) of one or more network slices and previous cell identifier that served the wireless device from first base station and cell identifier in RLF [0350, 0352]
and transmitting one or more reports to the network node comprises transmitting the RLF report and the RA report” (transmitting RLF and RA reports to base station [0350-0353, 0374]
Regarding claims 4, 10, Park does not expressly disclose “an amount of time elapsed between a radio link failure (RLF) declaration and the successful reestablishment”
da Silva discloses time amount provided by UE indicating elapsed time between RLF and reporting/reestablishment [0014]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “an amount of time elapsed between a radio link failure (RLF) declaration and the successful reestablishment” as taught by da Silva into Park’s system with the motivation to clearly indicate connection re-establishment by UE without any ambiguity (da Silva, [0007, 0112, 0018])
Regarding claims 5, 11, Park discloses “wherein the first set of information comprises any one or more of: at least one of cell level and beam level radio measurements associated with the cell in
which the reestablishment procedure was successful” RSRP and RSRQ of one or more beams of gNB2 [0352]
Regarding claims 6, 12, Park discloses “wherein the report comprises any one or more of: a cell identifier of a cell in which a reestablishment procedure was attempted” report comprises reestablishment cell identifier [0352], FIG. 25
Claims 13, 14, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of da Silva and Xu et al (USPN 20130165108).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses
a network node comprising processing circuitry operable to: (base station, FIG. 4 #401, comprising processor, FIG. 4 #403, operable to [0179, 0180]
receive a report from a wireless device (second base station, FIG. 25 # gNB2, receiving report from wireless device [0350-0354]
“wherein the report comprises a cell identifier of a cell in which a reestablishment procedure was performed successfully” report comprises reestablishment cell identifier [0352], FIG. 25
transmit an indication of a source of the failed handover to a second base station (gNB2 transmits elements of report including information on last connected beams of last connected cell during a failed handover, RSRP, RSRQ to gNB1 [0350-0356], FIG. 25
Park does not expressly disclose and an associated indication that the reestablishment was successful
da Silva discloses an associated indication that the reestablishment was successful (report comprising indication re-establishment successful transmitted by UE [0007, 0112, 0018]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “an associated indication that the reestablishment was successful” as taught by da Silva into Park’s system with the motivation to clearly indicate connection re-establishment by UE without any ambiguity (da Silva, [0007, 0112, 0018])
Combined system of Park and da Silva does not expressly disclose determine a source of a failed handover based on the report
Xu discloses determine a source of a failed handover based on the report (base station receiving report determines cause for RLF/handover failure based on report [0034, 0035, 0061-0066], FIG. 3
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “determine a source of a failed handover based on the report” as taught by Xu into combined system of Park and da Silva with the motivation to remedy causes of RLF and failed handover (Xu, paragraph [0034, 0035, 0061-0066], FIG. 3).
Claim 13 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 14, 20, Park discloses “wherein the second network node comprises at least one of a source node of the failed handover and a target node of the failed handover” gNB1 being source node of failed handover [0350-0356], FIG. 25
Regarding claim 21, Park discloses “wherein the received report comprises a radio link failure (RLF) report” report comprises RLF report [0350]
Regarding claim 22, Park does not expressly disclose “an amount of time elapsed between a radio link failure (RLF) declaration and the successful reestablishment”
da Silva discloses time amount provided by UE indicating elapsed time between RLF and reporting/reestablishment [0014]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “an amount of time elapsed between a radio link failure (RLF) declaration and the successful reestablishment” as taught by da Silva into Park’s system with the motivation to clearly indicate connection re-establishment by UE without any ambiguity (da Silva, [0007, 0112, 0018])
Regarding claim 23, Park discloses “wherein the report comprises any one or more of: at least one of cell level and beam level radio measurements associated with a cell in 20 which a reestablishment procedure was successful” RSRP and RSRQ of one or more beams of gNB2 [0352]
Regarding claim 24, Park discloses “wherein the report comprises any one or more of: a cell identifier of a cell in which a reestablishment procedure was attempted” report comprises reestablishment cell identifier [0352], FIG. 25
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Legg et al (USPN 20140050197) FIG. 4
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469