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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 12-31-2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 32-56 are pending in the current application.
Claims 32-56 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32-34, 40-43, and 54-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Telecom (Discussion on Mobility Enhancement Optimization). Hereinafter referred to as China.
Regarding claims 32, 41, and 55-56. China discloses a method performed by a wireless device for reporting handover related information to a base station for mobility parameter optimization, the method comprising: responsive to detection of a radio link failure or a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) failure after a successful handover, transmitting an indication of a handover type of the successful handover to the base station (see at least sections 1-2).
Regarding claims 33 and 43, China discloses a method wherein the handover type comprises one or more of: a legacy handover, a conditional handover, a conditional handover combined with a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover, or a DAPS handover (see at least sections 1-2).
Regarding claims 34 and 46. China discloses a method of claim 33, further comprising, responsive to the successful handover being a conditional handover or a conditional handover combined with a DAPS handover, logging an indication of whether a re-establishment cell selected after the radio link failure was a candidate cell for the successful handover in a radio link failure (RLF) report; and transmitting the RLF report to the base station (see at least sections 1-2).
Regarding claim 35. China discloses method of claim 33, further comprising, responsive to the successful handover being a conditional handover or a conditional handover combined with a DAPS handover, logging an indication of whether a reconnect cell identification identifies a candidate cell for the successful handover in a radio link failure report, and transmitting the RLF report to the base station (see at least sections 1-2).
Regarding claims 40 and 54. China discloses a method further comprising logging the handover type in a radio link failure report and transmitting the radio link failure report to the base station (see at least sections 1-2).
Regarding claim 42. China discloses a method further comprising: responsive to receiving the indication of the handover type, adjusting parameters associated with the handover type (see at least sections 1-2).
Regarding claim 43. China discloses a method wherein the handover type comprises one or more of: a legacy handover, a conditional handover, a conditional handover combined with a DAPS handover, or a DAPS handover (see at least sections 1-2).
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 32, 40-45, 48 and 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang et al (US 2022/0286935). Hereinafter referred to as Fang.
Regarding claims 32, 41, and 55-56. Fang discloses a method performed by a wireless device for reporting handover related information to a base station for mobility parameter optimization, the method comprising: responsive to detection of a radio link failure or a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) failure after a successful handover, transmitting an indication of a handover type of the successful handover to the base station (see at least figures 4-11: RLF report and paragraphs [0104]-[0112], [0141]-[0146], [0154]-[0155]).
Regarding claims 40 and 54. Fang discloses a method further comprising logging the handover type in a radio link failure report and transmitting the radio link failure report to the base station (see at least figures 4-11: RLF report and paragraphs [0104]-[0112], [0154]-[0155]).
Regarding claim 42. Fang discloses a method further comprising: responsive to receiving the indication of the handover type, adjusting parameters associated with the handover type (see at least figure 9 and paragraphs [0141]-[0146]).
Regarding claim 43. Fang discloses a method wherein the handover type comprises one or more of: a legacy handover, a conditional handover, a conditional handover combined with a DAPS handover, or a DAPS handover (see at least figures 4-11).
Regarding claim 44. Fang discloses a method further comprising, responsive to the successful handover being a conditional handover or a conditional handover combined with a DAPS handover, receiving, in a radio link failure report, an indication of whether a re-establishment cell selected after the radio link failure was a candidate cell for the successful handover (see at least paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 45. Fang discloses a method further comprising: responsive to the re-establishment cell not being a candidate cell for the successful handover, adding the re-establishment cell to a list of candidate cells for a conditional handover (see at least paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 48. Fang discloses a method wherein the successful handover comprises a Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell) change in a dual connectivity scenario (see at least paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 52. Fang discloses a method, further comprising, responsive to the successful handover being one of: a conditional SCG change, a conditional PSCell change, a conditional SCG change combined with a DAPS handover, or a DAPS SCG change, receiving, in a radio link failure report, an indication of whether a reconnect cell identification identifies a candidate cell for the successful handover (see at least paragraphs [0083]-[0084] and figures 4-11).
Regarding claim 53. Fang discloses a method further comprising: responsive to the reconnect cell identification not identifying a candidate cell for the successful handover, adding the identified reconnect cell to a list of candidate cells for conditional handover (see at least paragraphs [0083]-[0084] and figures 4-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 36-39, 44-45, 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China in view of Fang et al (US 2022/0286935). Hereinafter referred to as Fang.
Regarding claims 36 and 48, China discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention the exception the successful handover comprises a Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell) change in a dual connectivity scenario. However, Fang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell) change in a dual connectivity scenario (see at least paragraph [0075]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Fang, as indicated, into the communication method of China for the purpose of expanding network range and maintaining connectivity.
Regarding claims 37 and 49. China in view of Fang discloses a method wherein the handover type comprises one of: a normal SCG change, a conditional SCG change, a conditional PSCell change, a conditional SCG change combined with a DAPS handover, or a DAPS SCG change (see at least paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 38. China in view of Fang discloses a method further comprising, responsive to the successful handover being one of a conditional SCG change, a conditional PSCell change, a conditional SCG change combined with a DAPS handover, or a DAPS SCG change, logging an indication of whether a cell selected after the radio link failure was a candidate cell for the successful handover in a radio link failure report, and transmitting the radio link failure report to the base station (see at least paragraph [0078] and figures 4-11).
Regarding claim 39. China in view of Fang discloses a method further comprising, responsive to the successful handover being one of: a conditional SCG change, a conditional PSCell change, a conditional SCG change combined with a DAPS handover, or a DAPS SCG change, logging an indication of whether a reconnect cell identification identifies a candidate cell for the successful handover in a radio link failure report, and transmitting the radio link failure report to the base station (see at least paragraph [0078] and figures 4-11).
Regarding claim 44. China discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention the exception responsive to the successful handover being a conditional handover or a conditional handover combined with a DAPS handover, receiving, in a radio link failure report, an indication of whether a re-establishment cell selected after the radio link failure was a candidate cell for the successful handover. However, Fang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches responsive to the successful handover being a conditional handover or a conditional handover combined with a DAPS handover, receiving, in a radio link failure report, an indication of whether a re-establishment cell selected after the radio link failure was a candidate cell for the successful handover (see at least paragraphs [0083]-[0084]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Fang, as indicated, into the communication method of China for the purpose of expanding network range and maintaining connectivity.
Regarding claim 45. China discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention the exception responsive to the re-establishment cell not being a candidate cell for the successful handover, adding the re-establishment cell to a list of candidate cells for a conditional handover. However, Fang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches responsive to the re-establishment cell not being a candidate cell for the successful handover, adding the re-establishment cell to a list of candidate cells for a conditional handover (see at least paragraphs [0083]-[0084]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Fang, as indicated, into the communication method of China for the purpose of expanding network range and maintaining connectivity.
Regarding claim 47. China discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention the exception responsive to the reconnect cell identification not identifying a candidate cell for the successful handover, adding the identified reconnect cell to a list of candidate cells for a conditional handover. However, Fang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches responsive to the reconnect cell identification not identifying a candidate cell for the successful handover, adding the identified reconnect cell to a list of candidate cells for a conditional handover (see at least paragraph [0135]-[0136]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Fang, as indicated, into the communication method of China for the purpose of expanding network range and maintaining connectivity.
Regarding claim 50. China in view of Fang discloses a method further comprising, responsive to the successful handover being one of: a conditional SCG change, a conditional PSCell change, a conditional SCG change combined with a DAPS handover, or a DAPS SCG change, receiving, in a radio link failure report, an indication of whether a cell selected after the radio link failure was a candidate cell for the successful handover (see at least figures 4-11).
Regarding claim 51. China in view of Fang discloses a method further comprising responsive to the cell selected after the radio link failure not being a candidate cell for the successful handover, adding the cell selected after the radio link failure to a list of candidate cells for a conditional handover (see at least figures 4-11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-31-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants representative argues that the prior arts of record fail the teach “responsive to detection of a radio link failure or a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) failure after a successful handover, transmitting an indication of a handover type of the successful handover to the base station”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
With regards to China Telecom, in at least figures 1, when a RLF occurs after a successful handover, the UE may collect the failed target cell related information in RLF report and provide the RLF report to the network when needed (see section 2: The UE records the handover type and stores it in the RLF
report along with the failure information, then provided to the network when needed.) and the handover type is provided to the network when needed. Applicants’ representative argues that the indication is directed to a preceding successful handover. However, the claim language does not clearly indicate a preceding successful handover and leaves the reader subject to different interpretations. Moreover, China telecom states “when needed” which implies the UE can report any historical handover report/cause whenever requested by the network including all preceding handovers. Claims are given their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, Claims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their 'broadest reasonable interpretation'." 710 F.2d at 802, 218 USPQ at 292 (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). Moreover, claims are interpreted in light of the specification does not mean that everything in the specification must be read into the claims." Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 957, 220 USPQ 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 835 (1984). Furthermore, in figure 1, the UE performs a successful DAPS handover from gNB1 to gNB2 (UE successful connects with t-gNB) then the UR transmits an indication of the handover type of the successful handover (handover type (i.e. legacy HO, CHO, DAPS HO)) should be included in UE RLF report. In paragraph 2, noting that the handover type is that the previously successful DAPS handover from gNB1 to gNB2 (The UE records the handover type and stores it in the RLF report along with the failure information, then provided to the network when needed.).
With regards to Fang, in at least figures 4+ (RLF-info)), “the present embodiments relate to analyzing wireless network performance. A network node may receive information relating to at least one report reported by the UE. The report may include at least one of conditional handover (CHO) related information, SCG related information, MCG related information, Connection Failure related information, RACH procedure related information.” and “the UE may send an RLF report to base station 4 910. The RLF-the Report may include at least one of: indication of whether the MN HANDOVER target PCell (in this case: the cell 3 of base station 3) is the CHO candidate cell” when a RLF or CHO occurs after a successful handover, the UE may collect the failed target cell related information in RLF/CHO report and provide the RLF/CHO report to the network where a handover type is provided to the network. Applicants’ representative argues that the indication is directed to a preceding successful handover. However, the claim language does not clearly indicate a preceding successful handover and leaves the reader subject to different interpretations. Claims are given their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, Claims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their 'broadest reasonable interpretation'." 710 F.2d at 802, 218 USPQ at 292 (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). Moreover, claims are interpreted in light of the specification does not mean that everything in the specification must be read into the claims." Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 957, 220 USPQ 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 835 (1984).
Examiner suggests amending the claim language to articulate what is being claimed without leaving room for different interpretations. For instance the “handover type” is subject to different interpretations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476