DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 12 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, on page 15 of Remarks, that “Firstly, in Guo, the report does not include information related to a failure of an attempted multiple-event conditional handover execution that results in a radio link failure or a handover failure, but rather the report is a measurement report. Secondly, in Guo, the measurement report is transmitted when the condition is fulfilled (e.g., please see Guo [0021] leads the UE to transmit a measurement report when the condition is fulfilled Sending the handover command when the radio conditions are still favorable reduces the risk of failing the transmission of the measurement report and/or the reception of the handover command "), e.g., when radio conditions are favorable. Thus, it is evident that the monitoring as disclosed in Guo is different from the logging in Applicant's claim 40, in that the purpose of monitoring in Guo is to determine that the condition is fulfilled, e.g., radio conditions are favorable, so that the measurement reports are to be transmitted, whereas in Applicant's claim 40, the purpose of logging is to record a status of events to be included in the report that is transmitted to the network in response to the radio link failure or handover failure. Therefore, none of the cited references teach or suggest" logging, by a user device information related to a failure of an attempted multiple-event conditional handover execution that results in a radio link failure or a handover failure, ; and sending, by the user device in response to the radio link failure or the handover failure, a report including at least a portion of the information". Therefore, for at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claims 40, 64 and 65, and claims that depend therefrom, are patentable over the applied art.”
On the contrary, Guo states, in paragraph [0021]: “The entry condition that defines the criteria to apply the stored handover command is based on the quality of the serving cell(s) and neighbor cells, somewhat similar to the condition that in previous releases leads the UE to transmit a measurement report when the condition is fulfilled. For example, the network can configure the UE to transmit a measurement report when a neighbor cell becomes an offset better than the serving cell, as a way to indicate to the network that a handover may be needed.” [emphasis added]. Clearly, the UE taking measurements that are later reported when an entry condition based on those measurements is met, constitutes logging information. Guo states, in paragraph [0011]: “In some embodiments, the UE also be configured to refrain from applying the stored CHO configuration to the target candidate cell when both of the two CHO triggering events do not remain fulfilled upon expiration of the both timers (i.e., the entry condition is not satisfied since both of the CHO triggering events are not fulfilled).” [emphasis added]. Thus, Guo discloses the scenario wherein a conditional handover, having multiple triggering events, is unsuccessful. Therefore, Guo discloses “logging, by a user device in a wireless network, information related to a failure of … multiple-event conditional handover execution … wherein the attempted multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a joint evaluation of multiple events by the user device;” from claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new limitation in each of independent claims 40 and 64-65 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new reference, Hong, that is relied on in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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. Claims 40-41, 44-47, 50-56, and 61-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0176682 (hereinafter Guo), in view of Eklöf et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0201582 (hereinafter Eklöf), further in view of Hong et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0279401 (hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 40, Guo discloses a method (disclosed is a conditional handover (CHO) method, according to Abstract) comprising:
logging, by a user device in a wireless network, information related to a failure of a multiple-event conditional handover execution, wherein the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a joint evaluation of multiple events by the user device (a UE performs measurements, which are later sent in a measurement report, for a CHO that has two or more triggering events for an entry condition, according to Abstract, [0010], [0021], [0026]-[0031], [0039]-[0046], whereby it is possible that not all of the CHO execution conditions remain fulfilled upon expiration of their respective time-to-trigger (TTT) timers [“a failure of a multiple-event conditional handover execution by the user device”], according to [0010]-[0011]); and
sending, by the user device, a report including at least a portion of the information (the UE transmits a report that includes the measurements, according to [0021], [0040]),
wherein the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events (the CHO is based on two or more events, according to Abstract, [0010], [0027]-[0028], [0039]-[0046]);
wherein the logging comprises at least logging of an occurrence of an event-related condition, a number of occurrences of an event-related condition, or a time or timing of an occurrence of an event-related condition for one or more events of the plurality of events (the measurements comprise the recording of the occurrence of various events [“an occurrence of an event-related condition”], according to [0039]-[0046]).
Guo does not expressly disclose that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is an attempted multiple-event conditional handover execution that results in a radio link failure or a handover failure, nor sending, by the user device in response to the radio link failure or the handover failure, a report including at least a portion of the information.
Eklöf discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is an attempted multiple-event conditional handover execution that results in a radio link failure or a handover failure (while a UE is monitoring CHO triggering conditions, an RLF occurs and is considered to be a CHO failure, and is logged as such by the UE in a report, according to [0199], whereby the CHO is associated with multiple trigger conditions, according to [0229]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo with Eklöf such that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is an attempted multiple-event conditional handover execution that results in a radio link failure or a handover failure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness (Eklöf: [0002]-[0003]).
Neither Guo nor Eklöf expressly discloses sending, by the user device in response to the radio link failure or the handover failure, a report including at least a portion of the information.
Hong discloses sending, by the user device in response to the radio link failure or the handover failure, a report including at least a portion of the information (a UE transmits a secondary cell failure report to a BS when a radio link failure occurs, according to [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf with Hong by sending, by the user device in response to the radio link failure or the handover failure, a report including at least a portion of the information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase reliability and decrease latency (Hong: [0007], [0015]).
Claim 64 recites the apparatus, comprising at least one processor, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (disclosed is a UE that comprises processing circuitry and a memory storing information that is used by the processing circuitry to perform the functions of the UE, according to [0060]-[0062], Fig. 3 [elements 300, 306, and 308]), cause the apparatus at least to perform the method recited in claim 40, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 40.
Regarding claim 65, Guo discloses a method (disclosed is a conditional handover (CHO) method, according to Abstract) comprising:
sending, by a network node to a user device, a handover command with joint event configuration information including a configuration of multiple events to be jointly evaluated for conditional handover execution by the user device (a UE receives, from a source node, an RRC reconfiguration message comprising a CHO command that specifies the execution condition/triggering events for the conditional handover, according to [0016], [00108], [0020]-[0021], Figs. 1-2);
receiving, by the network node, a report including information logged by the user device related to a failure of a multiple-event conditional handover execution by the user device, wherein the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on the plurality of events (the UE transmits a measurement report to the network, according to [0021], [0040], whereby it is possible that not all of the CHO execution conditions remain fulfilled upon expiration of their respective time-to-trigger (TTT) timers [“a failure of a multiple-event conditional handover execution by the user device”], according to [0010]-[0011], whereby the conditional handover has two or more triggering events as an entry condition, according to Abstract, [0010]-[0014], [0027]-[0028], [0047]-[0048], [0053]); and
modifying, by the network node based on the report, one or more parameters associated with a configuration of one or more events for multiple-event conditional handover execution (while the serving cell radio conditions are still favorable for the UE, the serving cell sends the handover command that comprises the entry condition (whereby the handover command may be a modification of the existing handover configuration, according to [0008]), according to [0021]),
wherein the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events (the CHO is based on two or more events, according to Abstract, [0010], [0027]-[0028], [0039]-[0046]);
wherein the information logged by the user device comprises at least one of an occurrence of an event-related condition, a number of occurrences of an event-related condition, or a time or timing of an occurrence of an event-related condition for one or more events of the plurality of events (the measurements comprise the recording of the occurrence of various events [“an occurrence of an event-related condition”], according to [0039]-[0046]).
Guo does not expressly disclose that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is an attempted multiple-event conditional handover execution that results in a radio link failure or a handover failure, nor that receiving the report is in response to the radio link failure or the handover failure.
Eklöf discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is an attempted multiple-event conditional handover execution that results in a radio link failure or a handover failure (while a UE is monitoring CHO triggering conditions, an RLF occurs and is considered to be a CHO failure, and is logged as such by the UE in a report, according to [0199], whereby the CHO is associated with multiple trigger conditions, according to [0229]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo with Eklöf such that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is an attempted multiple-event conditional handover execution that results in a radio link failure or a handover failure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve mobility robustness (Eklöf: [0002]-[0003]).
Neither Guo nor Eklöf expressly discloses that receiving the report is in response to the radio link failure or the handover failure.
Hong discloses that receiving the report is in response to the radio link failure or the handover failure (a UE transmits a secondary cell failure report to a BS when a radio link failure occurs, according to [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf with Hong such that receiving the report is in response to the radio link failure or the handover failure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase reliability and decrease latency (Hong: [0007], [0015]).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution comprises a dual-event conditional handover execution that is based on a joint evaluation of two events (the conditional handover may have two triggering events as an entry condition, according to Abstract, [0010]-[0014], [0027]-[0028], [0047]-[0048], [0053]).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that an event-related condition comprises at least one of the following: a status of a Time-To-Trigger timer for an event, including a status of either not started, started, stopped after being started, or expired; an event fulfilling an entering condition for the event; an event fulfilling a leaving condition for the event; an occurrence of a handover failure for the user device; or fulfillment, or not, of an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution (the CHO triggering events are an entry condition [“an event fulfilling an entering condition for the event”], according to Abstract, [0010]).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events (the conditional handover has two or more triggering events as an entry condition, according to Abstract, [0010]-[0014], [0027]-[0028], [0047]-[0048], [0053]);
wherein the logging comprises at least one of the following: logging information indicating whether an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events; logging information indicating a number of times that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events; logging a time relationship of, or a time difference between, event-related conditions of at least two events of the plurality of events; logging information indicating a time that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events; logging information indicating for which event an event-related condition occurred first; or logging a number of failures of handover for the user device due to the plurality of events not fulfilling an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution (the logged measurement information relates to whether various specific events relating to the quality of the serving cell and/or a neighbor cell, have transpired [“logging information indicating whether an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events”], according to [0026]-[0031], [0039]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events (the conditional handover has two or more triggering events as an entry condition, according to Abstract, [0010]-[0014], [0027]-[0028], [0047]-[0048], [0053]);
wherein the logging comprises logging information indicating whether an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events (the logged measurement information relates to whether various specific events relating to the quality of the serving cell and/or a neighbor cell, have transpired, according to [0026]-[0031], [0039]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the logging information indicating whether an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events comprises at least one of the following: logging information indicating which event, if any, has fulfilled an entering condition for the event, and started a Time-To-Trigger timer; logging information indicating which event, if any, has fulfilled an entering condition for the event, started a Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event expired; logging information indicating fulfillment, or not, of an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution based on a joint evaluation of multiple events by the user device; logging information indicating whether or not a first event, having a Time-To-Trigger timer that has already expired, fulfills a leaving condition for the first event when a Time-To- Trigger timer for the second event expires; or logging information indicating which event, if any, fulfilled an entering condition for the event, started its Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event was stopped before expiring (the UE ascertains whether the CHO triggering events for the entry condition remain fulfilled upon the expiration of a time-to-trigger (TTT) timer [“logging information indicating which event, if any, has fulfilled an entering condition for the event, started a Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event expired”], according to [0010]).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events including at least a first event and a second event (the conditional handover has two or more triggering events as an entry condition, according to Abstract, [0010]-[0014], [0027]-[0028], [0047]-[0048], [0053]);
wherein the logging comprises at least logging of information indicating a relationship of a first event-related condition for the first event with respect to a second event-related condition for the second event (the UE starts respective countdown timers when each of the CHO triggering conditions is met (the UE therefore is aware of the respective times at which each of the CHO triggering conditions is met), according to [0010]).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 50. Additionally, Guo discloses that the information indicating a relationship comprises at least one of: an order of the first event-related condition for the first event and the second event-related condition of the second event; a time between an occurrence of the first event-related condition for the first event and an occurrence of the second event-related condition of the second event; or a time of an occurrence of the first event-related condition for the first event and a time of an occurrence of the second event-related condition of the second event (the UE starts respective countdown timers when each of the CHO triggering conditions is met (the UE therefore is aware of the respective times at which each of the CHO triggering conditions is met) [“a time of an occurrence of the first event-related condition for the first event and a time of an occurrence of the second event-related condition of the second event”], according to [0010]).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 50. Additionally, Guo discloses that the logging of information indicating a relationship comprises at least one of the following:
logging whether a first event or a second event fulfilled an entering condition first;
logging values of Time-To-Trigger timers of the first event and the second event when one of the Time-To-Trigger timers was stopped or expired; or logging a time or time period when Time-To-Trigger timers of the first event and the second event were running in parallel (the UE tracks which of the plurality of CHO triggering events has the entry condition met first, and which of the CHO triggering events has the entry condition met second [“logging whether a first event or a second event fulfilled an entering condition first”], according [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events (the conditional handover has two or more triggering events as an entry condition, according to Abstract, [0010]-[0014], [0027]-[0028], [0047]-[0048], [0053]);
wherein the logging comprises logging information indicating a time that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events (the UE notes when the entry condition of a particular CHO triggering event has been met, according to [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 53. Additionally, Guo discloses that the logging comprises logging information indicating a time that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events comprises at least one of the following: logging information indicating a time when a Time-To-Trigger timer for an event was started; logging information indicating a time when a Time-To-Trigger timer for an event expired; logging information indicating a time when a Time-To-Trigger timer for an event stopped; or logging information indicating a time when a Time-To-Trigger timer for a first event was running in parallel with a Time-To-Trigger timer for a second event (the UE notes when the entry condition of a particular CHO triggering event has been met and a corresponding TTT timer started [“logging information indicating a time when a Time-To-Trigger timer for an event was started”], according to [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events (the conditional handover has two or more triggering events as an entry condition, according to Abstract, [0010]-[0014], [0027]-[0028], [0047]-[0048], [0053]);
wherein the logging comprises: logging information indicating for which event an event-related condition occurred first (the UE tracks which of the plurality of CHO triggering events has the entry condition met first, according [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 55. Additionally, Guo discloses that the logging information indicating for which event an event-related condition occurred first comprises at least one of the following: logging information indicating which event, if any, fulfilled an entering condition for the event and started a Time-To-Trigger timer first;
logging information indicating which event, if any, had a Time-To-Trigger timer expire first; logging information indicating which event, if any, fulfilled an entering condition for the event, started a Time-To-Trigger timer, and then stopped the Time-To-Trigger timer first (the UE notes which of the plurality of CHO triggering events has the entry condition met, and a corresponding TTT timer started, first [“logging information indicating which event, if any, fulfilled an entering condition for the event and started a Time-To-Trigger timer first”], according to [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 61, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events, including at least a first event and a second event (the CHO is based on two or more events, according to Abstract, [0010], [0027]-[0028], [0039]-[0046]);
wherein the logging comprises at least one of the following: logging of a configuration of a first event and/or a configuration of a second event; logging information indicating which event, if any, has fulfilled an entering condition for the event, and started a Time-To-Trigger timer; logging information indicating which event, if any, has fulfilled an entering condition for the event, started a Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event expired; logging information indicating fulfillment, or not, of an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution; logging information indicating whether or not a first event, having a Time-To- Trigger timer that has already expired, fulfills a leaving condition for the first event when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event expires; logging information indicating which event, if any, started its Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event was stopped before expiring; logging information indicating how many times each event, if any, started its Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event was stopped before expiring; logging whether a first event or a second event fulfilled an entering condition first; logging values of Time-To-Trigger timers of the first event and the second event when one of the Time-To-Trigger timers was stopped or expired; logging a time or time period when Time-To-Trigger timers of the first event and the second event were running in parallel; logging information indicating a time when a Time-To-Trigger timer for an event was started; logging information indicating a time when a Time-To-Trigger timer for an event expired; logging information indicating a time when a Time-To-Trigger timer for an event stopped; logging information indicating a time when a Time-To-Trigger timer for a first event was running in parallel with a Time-To-Trigger timer for a second event; logging information indicating which event, if any, fulfilled an entering condition for the event and started a Time-To-Trigger timer first; logging information indicating which event, if any, had a Time-To-Trigger timer expire first; logging information indicating which event, if any, fulfilled an entering condition for the event, started a Time-To-Trigger timer, and then stopped the Time-To-Trigger timer first; or logging a failure counter that counts a number of failures of conditional handovers of the user device due to the plurality of events not fulfilling an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution (the UE ascertains whether the CHO triggering events for the entry condition remain fulfilled upon the expiration of a time-to-trigger (TTT) timer [“logging information indicating which event, if any, has fulfilled an entering condition for the event, started a Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event expired”], according to [0010]).
Regarding claim 62, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses receiving, by the user device from a network node, a handover command, as part of a conditional handover, including a configuration of each of multiple events, including for at least a configuration of a first event and a configuration for a second event, and a joint evaluation configuration that configures a joint evaluation of the multiple events by the user device to determine whether or not to perform a conditional handover execution (a UE receives, from a source node, an RRC reconfiguration message comprising a CHO command that specifies the execution condition/triggering events for the conditional handover, according to [0016], [00108], [0020]-[0021], Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 63, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses jointly evaluating, by the user device, the plurality of events to determine whether or not to perform a conditional handover execution of the user device from a source network node to a target network node (the UE determines that said UE should perform the CHO based on the plurality of triggering events all being fulfilled, according to [0010]-[0012]).
Claim 66 does not differ substantively from claim 63, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 63.
Claim 67 does not differ substantively from claim 41, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 41.
Claim 68 does not differ substantively from claim 44, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 44.
Claim 69 does not differ substantively from claim 45, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 45.
Claim 70 does not differ substantively from claim 61, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 61.
6. Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Eklöf in view of Hong as applied to claim 40 above, further in view of Lu, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0250857 (hereinafter Lu).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40.
Neither Guo, Eklöf, nor Hong expressly discloses sending, by the user device, a report that includes at least a portion of the information, after the user device re-establishes a connection to a cell after a handover failure or radio link failure has occurred for the user device.
Lu discloses sending, by the user device, a report that includes at least a portion of the information, after the user device re-establishes a connection to a cell after a handover failure or radio link failure has occurred for the user device (after link reestablishment, a terminal equipment reports radio link failure information that includes a link measurement report, according to [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf as modified by Hong with Lu by sending, by the user device, a report that includes at least a portion of the information, after the user device re-establishes a connection to a cell after a handover failure or radio link failure has occurred for the user device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that a network may ascertain the cause for a link failure (Lu: [0091]).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, Hong, and Lu discloses all the limitations of claim 42.
Neither Guo, Eklöf, nor Hong expressly discloses that the sending comprises at least one of: sending, by the user device in response to a radio link failure or handover failure, a report that includes at least a portion of the information; or sending, by the user device in response to a request from a network node, a report that includes at least a portion of the information.
Lu discloses that the sending comprises at least one of: sending, by the user device in response to a radio link failure or handover failure, a report that includes at least a portion of the information; or sending, by the user device in response to a request from a network node, a report that includes at least a portion of the information (the terminal equipment transmits a measurement report, comprising a link measurement quality report on neighboring cells when the link failure occurs, to the network in response to the radio link failure [“sending, by the user device in response to a radio link failure or handover failure, a report that includes at least a portion of the information”], according to [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf as modified by Hong as modified by Lu with Lu by sending comprises at least one of: sending, by the user device in response to a radio link failure or handover failure, a report that includes at least a portion of the information; or sending, by the user device in response to a request from a network node, a report that includes at least a portion of the information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that a network may ascertain the cause for a link failure (Lu: [0091]).
7. Claims 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Eklöf in view of Hong as applied to claim 40 above, further in view of Saed et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0295509 (hereinafter Saed).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events (the CHO is based on two or more events, according to Abstract, [0010], [0027]-[0028], [0039]-[0046]).
Neither Guo, Eklöf, nor Hong expressly discloses that the logging comprises logging information indicating a number of times that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events.
Saed discloses that the logging comprises logging information indicating a number of times that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events (the number of times a backoff timer is paused during transmission attempts for each contention window of a wireless station is determined, [0012]-[0013], [0046], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf as modified by Hong with Saed such that the logging comprises logging information indicating a number of times that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to quantify the degree of channel congestion (Saed: [0013], [0050]).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, Hong, and Saed discloses all the limitations of claim 48.
Neither Guo, Eklöf, nor Hong expressly discloses that the logging comprises logging information indicating a number of times that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events comprises at least: logging information indicating how many times each event, if any, started its Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event was stopped before expiring.
Saed discloses that the logging comprises logging information indicating a number of times that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events comprises at least: logging information indicating how many times each event, if any, started its Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event was stopped before expiring (the number of times a backoff timer is paused during transmission attempts for each contention window of a wireless station is determined, [0012]-[0013], [0046], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf as modified by Hong as modified by Saed with Saed such that the logging comprises logging information indicating a number of times that an event-related condition has occurred for one or more of the plurality of events comprises at least: logging information indicating how many times each event, if any, started its Time-To-Trigger timer, and the Time-To-Trigger timer for the event was stopped before expiring.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to quantify the degree of channel congestion (Saed: [0013], [0050]).
8. Claims 57-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Eklöf in view of Hong as applied to claim 40 above, further in view of Chen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0351694 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 57, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, and Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 40. Additionally, Guo discloses that the multiple-event conditional handover execution is based on a plurality of events, including at least a first event and a second event (the CHO is based on two or more events, according to Abstract, [0010], [0027]-[0028], [0039]-[0046]).
Neither Guo, Eklöf, nor Hong expressly discloses that the logging comprises logging a failure counter that counts a number of failures of conditional handovers of the user device due to the plurality of events not fulfilling an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution.
Chen discloses that the logging comprises logging a failure counter that counts a number of failures of conditional handovers of the user device due to the plurality of events not fulfilling an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution (a UE counts the number of failures of a CHO command to be successfully executed (whereby there are a plurality of CHO trigger conditions, according to [0062]), according to [0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf as modified by Hong with Chen such that the logging comprises logging a failure counter that counts a number of failures of conditional handovers of the user device due to the plurality of events not fulfilling an execution condition for the multiple-event conditional handover execution.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve network reliability (Chen: [0003]).
Regarding claim 58, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, Hong, and Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 57.
Neither Guo, Eklöf, nor Hong expressly discloses that the logging a failure counter comprises logging one or more of the following information for a case where both the first event and the second event are non-dual-threshold measurement events: a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first event did not expire; or a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event did not expire.
Chen discloses that the logging a failure counter comprises logging one or more of the following information for a case where both the first event and the second event are non-dual-threshold measurement events: a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first event did not expire; or a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event did not expire (the CHO command may specify a single threshold event, such as the serving cell becoming worse than an absolute threshold, or a neighbor cell becoming better than an absolute threshold, according to [0090]-[0098], whereby the leaving condition for a CHO command may be a threshold applied to a plurality of target cells, each with an associated timer, whereby if the leaving condition for the CHO command may be fulfilled before the associated timer expires, then the CHO command becomes invalid and is released by the UE (which constitutes a conditional handover failure), according to [0121]-[0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf as modified by Hong as modified by Chen with Chen such that the logging a failure counter comprises logging one or more of the following information for a case where both the first event and the second event are non-dual-threshold measurement events: a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first event did not expire; or a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event did not expire.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve network reliability (Chen: [0003]).
Regarding claim 59, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, Hong, and Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 57.
Neither Guo, Eklöf, nor Hong expressly discloses that the logging a failure counter comprises logging one or more of the following information for a case where both the first event and the second event are dual-threshold measurement events: a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first event did not expire because a source cell measurement was not less than a first threshold; a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event did not expire because a target cell measurement was not greater than a second threshold;
a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event did not expire because a source cell measurement was not less than a first threshold; or a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first event did not expire because a target cell measurement was not greater than a second threshold.
Chen discloses that the logging a failure counter comprises logging one or more of the following information for a case where both the first event and the second event are dual-threshold measurement events: a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first event did not expire because a source cell measurement was not less than a first threshold; a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event did not expire because a target cell measurement was not greater than a second threshold;
a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event did not expire because a source cell measurement was not less than a first threshold; or a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first event did not expire because a target cell measurement was not greater than a second threshold (the CHO command may specify a dual threshold event, such as “Event A5: PCell/PSCell becomes worse than absolute threshold1 AND neighbor/Secondary Cell (SCell) becomes better than another absolute threshold2”, according to [0090]-[0098], whereby the leaving condition for a CHO command may be a threshold applied to a plurality of target cells, each with an associated timer, whereby if the leaving condition for the CHO command may be fulfilled before the associated timer expires, then the CHO command becomes invalid and is released by the UE (which constitutes a conditional handover failure), according to [0121]-[0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf as modified by Hong as modified by Chen with Chen such that the logging a failure counter comprises logging one or more of the following information for a case where both the first event and the second event are dual-threshold measurement events: a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first event did not expire because a source cell measurement was not less than a first threshold; a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event did not expire because a target cell measurement was not greater than a second threshold; a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event did not expire because a source cell measurement was not less than a first threshold; or a number of conditional handover failures when a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first event did not expire because a target cell measurement was not greater than a second threshold.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve network reliability (Chen: [0003]).
Regarding claim 60, the combination of Guo, Eklöf, Hong, and Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 57.
Neither Guo, Eklöf, nor Hong expressly discloses that the logging a failure counter comprises logging the following information: a number of conditional handover failures based on a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first the first event expired and then the Time-To-Trigger timer for second event expired, but a leaving condition for the first event was fulfilled when the Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event expired.
Chen discloses that the logging a failure counter comprises logging the following information: a number of conditional handover failures based on a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first the first event expired and then the Time-To-Trigger timer for second event expired, but a leaving condition for the first event was fulfilled when the Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event expired (a plurality of target cells have associated timers, whereby if a timer related to a CHO command expires, then the CHO command becomes invalid and is released by the UE (which constitutes a conditional handover failure), whereby the timers associated with different respective CHO commands run independently of each other, such that a leaving condition associated with one target cell may be fulfilled before its timer expires, while the timer associated with another target cell may expire, according to [0121]-[0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Eklöf as modified by Hong as modified by Chen with Chen such that the logging a failure counter comprises logging the following information: a number of conditional handover failures based on a Time-To-Trigger timer for the first the first event expired and then the Time-To-Trigger timer for second event expired, but a leaving condition for the first event was fulfilled when the Time-To-Trigger timer for the second event expired.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve network reliability (Chen: [0003]).
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Anthony Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645