DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 12/11/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 13, and 17 were amended, and claim 6 was cancelled. All uncancelled claims remain pending.
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.
Response to Arguments
First, on pages 12-13 of their remarks, the applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed invention from Wu, the prior art of record, writing: “Wu does not disclose that the rlf-InfoAvailable and the RLF-report received by the target BS can indicate whether there is DAPS handover failure information in the RLF report, nor does it disclose that the DAPS handover failure information can be used to indicate that the UE fails to access the target cell [emphasis in original]” (Applicant Remarks, p. 12-13).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged by the applicant, paragraph 0108 of the applicant’s specification lists a “rlf-InfoAvailable” field as an example of the claimed “DAPS handover failure information”. Moreover, paragraph 0108 of the applicant’s specification clarifies that “rlf-InfoAvailable” is a “flag bit”. Such a single flag bit can only indicate the presence or absence of a RLF report, and any specific details about the circumstances surrounding the RLF must derive from context that the receiving base station already knows because it could not derive more detail from a single bit. To this point, Wu clearly describes contextual details that would allow a base station to determine “whether there is DAPS handover failure information in the RLF report”. Specifically, paragraphs 0188-0189 of Wu state that “[a] UE transmits an indication of rlf-InfoAvailable to a target BS” only “[a]fter a DAPS handover procedure is successfully completed” (Wu, 0188-0189). Thus, because Wu describes transmitting “rlf-InfoAvailable” after a DAPS handover, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any possible RLF must have occurred during the “DAPS handover”, and the single rlf-InfoAvailable bit would communicate this to the base station, just as in the claimed invention.
Similarly, although Wu on its own does not teach that “the DAPS handover failure information can be used to indicate that the UE fails to access the target cell”, it does describe “the DAPS handover failure information” (i.e. the rlf-InfoAvailable bit), and the contextual details that suggest it “indicate[s] that the UE fails to access the target cell” would result from Wu’s combination with Liu. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, on pages 13-14 of their remarks, the applicant argues that amendments to claim 1 which changed language requiring the RLF to occur between the UE and the source device to instead stipulate that the RLF occurs while a UE accesses a target cell. However, the rejection of these new limitations relies on a new reference, Liu et al., meaning these arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Finally, the applicant argues on page 14 of their remarks that “Wu does not disclose that the rlf-InfoAvailable can indicate whether there is DAPS handover failure information in the RLF-report” (Remarks, p. 14). However, this argument is the same as the one on pages 12-13 of the applicant’s remarks. To reiterate, the examiner does not find it persuasive for the reasons outlined above.
The applicant also offers several arguments on pages 14-16 of their remarks attempting to show that prior art of record, Jo et al., does not disclose the features of amended claim 1, but Jo is not relied upon as grounds of rejection in this office action. As such, the applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Jo for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0189112 A1, hereinafter “Wu”) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0141735 A1, hereinafter “Liu”).
As to Claim 1:
Wu describes a method for reporting radio link failure during DAPS handover.
Specifically, Wu teaches:
Transmitting, by a terminal device, first indication information to a network device
(“[T]he UE will transmit a failure report to the network.... The method may be performed by a UE. The method includes: ... transmitting a RLF report related to the RLF” (Wu, 0002, 0009).
Here, “transmitting” maps to “transmitting”,
“a UE” maps to “a terminal device”,
“a RLF report” maps to “first indication information”, and
“to the network” maps to “to a network device”).
The first indication information indicates that a Radio Link Failure (RLF) occurs between the terminal device and a source cell in a handover process of the terminal device from the source cell to a target cell in a handover process of the terminal device from the source cell to a target cell using a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover scheme
(“[T]he UE releases a source cell of the source BS after successfully completing a random access procedure to the target BS.... The method may be performed by a UE. The method includes: ... performing a DAPS handover procedure; and in response to a radio link failure (RLF) of a source link for a master cell group (MCG) during the DAPS handover procedure, transmitting a RLF report related to the RLF after successfully completing the DAPS handover procedure” (Wu, 0003, 0009).
Here, “a RLF report” maps to “the first indication information”,
“related to the RLF” maps to “indicates that a Radio Link Failure (RLF) occurs”,
“a UE” maps to “the terminal device”,
“a source link for a master cell group” maps to “the source cell”,
“a DAPS handover procedure” maps to “a handover process”,
“the target BS” maps to “a target cell”, and
“the DAPS handover procedure” maps to “a handover process ... using a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover scheme”).
The first indication information comprises a type value
(“The RLF report includes information related to a RLF of a source link for a MCG during a DAPS handover procedure.... [T]he RLF report may include at least one of ... a connection failure type ... The connection failure type may be configured as a RLF in source” (Wu, 0174).
Here, “the RLF report” maps to “the first indication information”,
“include” maps to “comprises”, and
“connection failure type” maps to “a type value”).
The type value indicates that a type of an RLF report reported by the terminal device is an RLF report of the RLF occurring in the source cell during the DAPS handover
(“[T]he target BS receives a UE information response including a RLF report. The RLF report includes information related to a RLF of a source link for a MCG during a DAPS handover procedure.... [T]he RLF report may include at least one of ... a connection failure type ... The connection failure type may be configured as a RLF in source” (Wu, 0174).
Here, “connection failure type” maps to “the type value”,
“configured as” maps to “indicates”,
“connection failure type” maps to “a type of an RLF report”,
“receives a UE information response” maps to “reported by the terminal device”, and
“a RLF in source” maps to “an RLF report of the RLF occurring in the source cell during the DAPS handover”).
Transmitting, by the terminal device, second indication information to the network device before transmitting the first indication information, the second indication information indicating whether there is DAPS handover failure information in an RLF report reported by the terminal device
(“After a DAPS handover procedure is successfully completed, the UE accesses to a target cell [sic]. (2) UE transmits an indication of rlf-InfoAvailable to a target BS. (3) After receiving the indication from the UE, the target BS transmits UE information request to the UE. (4) After receiving the UE information request from the target BS, the UE transmits UE information response including a RLF-report to the target BS” (Wu, 0188-0191).
Here, “transmits” maps to “transmitting”,
“UE” maps to “the terminal device”,
“rlf-InfoAvailable” maps to “second indication information”,
“a target BS” maps to “the network device”,
“After receiving the indication from the UE” maps to “before transmitting the first indication information” because the UE transmits the “RLF-report” after sending “rlf-InfoAvailable,
“rlf-InfoAvailable” maps to “the second indication indicating whether there is DAPS handover failure information in an RLF report reported by the terminal device” because this is one example of the second indication given in paragraph 0092 of the claimed invention’s specification).
Wu does not explicitly disclose:
The network device being a network device of a cell for reestablishment after the ... handover fails
The ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell, or that the terminal device successfully accesses the target cell and an RLF occurs between the terminal device and the target cell
However, Liu does describe different methods for a UE to reestablish a network connection after RLF occurs.
Specifically, Liu teaches:
The network device being a network device of a cell for reestablishment after the ... handover fails
(“A UE 505 [in Fig. 5] may experience an RLF event with the target cell 510 before the handover procedure is ... completed. The UE 505 may attempt to reestablish an RRC connection and/or a radio link with the third cell 520. After successfully reestablishing the RRC connection, the UE 505 may transmit an RLF report including RLF information to the third cell 520” (Liu, 0289).
Here, “the third cell” with which “[t]he UE 505 may attempt to reestablish an RRC connection” maps to “the network device being a network device of a cell for reestablishment”, and
“an RLF event ... before the handover procedure is ... completed” maps to “after the ... handover fails”).
And from the list of:
The ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell, or that the terminal device successfully accesses the target cell and an RLF occurs between the terminal device and the target cell
Liu at least teaches:
The ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell
(“A UE 505 [in Fig. 5] may experience an RLF event with the target cell 510 before the handover procedure is ... completed. The UE 505 may attempt to reestablish an RRC connection and/or a radio link with the third cell 520. After successfully reestablishing the RRC connection, the UE 505 may transmit an RLF report including RLF information to the third cell 520” (Liu, 0289).
Here, “RLF information” for “an RLF event with the target cell 510” maps to “the ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Liu’s practice of reestablishing an RRC connection with a third cell and sending a RLF report to that third cell into Wu’s method for reporting DAPS handover failure. The third base station can provide a reliable alternative for reestablishing a wireless connection if handover fails and the source base station is unavailable.
As to Claim 3:
Wu teaches:
The first indication information comprises first information indicating that the RLF occurs in the source cell in the DAPS handover process
(“[T]he UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102.... [T]o provide indication from MCG radio link control (RLC) that the maximum number of retransmissions has been reached, the UE 101 sets the failureType as rlc-MaxNumRetx” (Wu, 0048, 0054).
Here, “MCG failure information” maps to “the first indication information”,
“rlc-MaxNumRetx” maps to “first information indicating that the RLF occurs in the source cell in the DAPS handover process” because reaching the maximum number of retransmission attempts is an example of a RLF that occurs in the source cell during DAPS handover).
As to Claim 4:
Wu teaches:
The first information indicates at least one of:
(“[T]he UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102” (Wu, 0048,).
Here, “MCG failure information” maps to “the first information”).
A lower layer reports a random access problem of the source cell during execution of the DAPS handover at the source cell; or
(“If the UE 101 initiates a transmission of the MCGFailureInformation message as shown in operation 202, to provide a random access problem indication from a medium access control (MAC) layer of a MCG, the UE 101 sets the failureType as randomAccessProblem” (Wu, 0054).
Here, “a medium access control (MAC) layer” maps to “a lower layer”,
“provide a ... indication” maps to “reports”,
“a random access problem” maps to “a random access problem ... during execution of the DAPS handover” because it is obvious from context that this random access occurs during DAPS handover,
“MCG [master cell group]” maps to “of the source cell”, and
“MCG [master cell group]” maps to “at the source cell”).
A number of Radio Link Control (RLC) retransmissions at the source cell reaches a maximum number of retransmissions during execution of the DAPS handover at the source cell
(“[T]o provide indication from MCG radio link control (RLC) that the maximum number of retransmissions has been reached, the UE 101 sets the failureType as rlc-MaxNumRetx” (Wu, 0048, 0054).
Here, “number of retransmissions” maps to “a number of Radio Link Control (RLC) retransmissions”,
“MCG [master cell group]” maps to “at the source cell”, and
“the maximum number of retransmissions has been reached” maps to “reaches a maximum number of retransmissions during execution of the DAPS handover” because it is obvious from context that this occurs during DAPS handover).
As to Claim 5:
Wu teaches:
The first indication information comprises a measurement result of a measurement performed by the terminal device for the DAPS handover
(“In operation 302 [of Fig. 3], the source BS may decide to handover the UE, which may be based on the measurement result reported by the UE.... A failure type and available measurement results will be included in the MCG failure information message” (Wu, 0061, 0135).
Here, “the MCG failure information message” maps to “the first information message”,
“included” maps to “comprises”,
“available measurement results” maps to “a measurement result”,
“by the UE” maps to “performed by the terminal device”, and
“to handover” maps to “for the DAPS handover” because it is obvious from context that this handover is a DAPS handover).
As to Claim 8:
Wu teaches:
The second indication information is an available RLF information, rlf-InfoAvailable, field
(“(2) UE transmits an indication of rlf-InfoAvailable to a target BS” (Wu, 0189).
Here, “rlf-InfoAvailable” maps to “the second indication information is an available RLF information, rlf-InfoAvailable, field”).
As to Claim 9:
Wu teaches:
Receiving, by the terminal device, request information transmitted by the network device, the request information being used for requesting information from the terminal device
(“(3) After receiving the indication from the UE, the target BS transmits UE information request to the UE” (Wu, 0190).
Here, “transmits” maps to “receiving” from the perspective of “the UE”,
“the UE” maps to “the terminal device”,
“UE information request” maps to “request information ... the request information being used for requesting information from the terminal device”, and
“the target BS transmits” maps to “transmitted by the network device”).
Transmitting, by the terminal device, response information for the request information to the network device, the response information comprising the first indication information
(“(4) After receiving the UE information request from the target BS, the UE transmits UE information response including a RLF-report to the target BS” (Wu, 0191).
Here, “the UE transmits” maps to “transmitting, by the terminal device”,
“UE information response” maps to “response information”,
“After receiving the UE information request” maps to “for the request information”,
“to the target BS” maps to “to the network device”,
“including” maps to “comprising”, and
“a RLF-report” maps to “the first indication information”).
As to Claim 12:
Wu teaches:
The first indication information is an RLF report
(“(4) After receiving the UE information request from the target BS, the UE transmits UE information response including a RLF-report to the target BS” (Wu, 0191).
Here, “a RLF-report” maps to “the first indication information is an RLF report”).
As to Claim 13:
Wu teaches:
Receiving, by a network device, first indication information transmitted by a terminal device
(“[T]he UE will transmit a failure report to the network.... The method may be performed by a UE. The method includes: ... transmitting a RLF report related to the RLF” (Wu, 0002, 0009).
Here, “transmitting” maps to “receiving” from the perspective of “the network”,
“the network” maps to “a network device”,
“a RLF report” maps to “first indication information”,
“transmit” maps to “transmitted”, and
“the UE” maps to “by a terminal device”).
The first indication information indicates that a Radio Link Failure (RLF) occurs between the terminal device and a source cell in a handover process of the terminal device from the source cell to a target cell in a handover process of the terminal device from the source cell to a target cell using a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover scheme
(“[T]he UE releases a source cell of the source BS after successfully completing a random access procedure to the target BS.... The method may be performed by a UE. The method includes: ... performing a DAPS handover procedure; and in response to a radio link failure (RLF) of a source link for a master cell group (MCG) during the DAPS handover procedure, transmitting a RLF report related to the RLF after successfully completing the DAPS handover procedure” (Wu, 0003, 0009).
Here, “a RLF report” maps to “the first indication information”,
“related to the RLF” maps to “indicates that a Radio Link Failure (RLF) occurs”,
“a UE” maps to “the terminal device”,
“a source link for a master cell group” maps to “the source cell”,
“a DAPS handover procedure” maps to “a handover process”,
“the target BS” maps to “a target cell”, and
“the DAPS handover procedure” maps to “a handover process ... using a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover scheme”).
The first indication information comprises a type value
(“The RLF report includes information related to a RLF of a source link for a MCG during a DAPS handover procedure.... [T]he RLF report may include at least one of ... a connection failure type ... The connection failure type may be configured as a RLF in source” (Wu, 0174).
Here, “the RLF report” maps to “the first indication information”,
“include” maps to “comprises”, and
“connection failure type” maps to “a type value”).
The type value indicates that a type of an RLF report reported by the terminal device is an RLF report of the RLF occurring in the source cell during the DAPS handover
(“[T]he target BS receives a UE information response including a RLF report. The RLF report includes information related to a RLF of a source link for a MCG during a DAPS handover procedure.... [T]he RLF report may include at least one of ... a connection failure type ... The connection failure type may be configured as a RLF in source” (Wu, 0174).
Here, “connection failure type” maps to “the type value”,
“configured as” maps to “indicates”,
“connection failure type” maps to “a type of an RLF report”,
“receives a UE information response” maps to “reported by the terminal device”, and
“a RLF in source” maps to “an RLF report of the RLF occurring in the source cell during the DAPS handover”).
Transmitting, by the terminal device, second indication information to the network device before transmitting the first indication information, the second indication information indicating whether there is DAPS handover failure information in an RLF report reported by the terminal device
(“After a DAPS handover procedure is successfully completed, the UE accesses to a target cell [sic]. (2) UE transmits an indication of rlf-InfoAvailable to a target BS. (3) After receiving the indication from the UE, the target BS transmits UE information request to the UE. (4) After receiving the UE information request from the target BS, the UE transmits UE information response including a RLF-report to the target BS” (Wu, 0188-0191).
Here, “transmits” maps to “transmitting”,
“UE” maps to “the terminal device”,
“rlf-InfoAvailable” maps to “second indication information”,
“a target BS” maps to “the network device”,
“After receiving the indication from the UE” maps to “before transmitting the first indication information” because the UE transmits the “RLF-report” after sending “rlf-InfoAvailable,
“rlf-InfoAvailable” maps to “the second indication indicating whether there is DAPS handover failure information in an RLF report reported by the terminal device” because this is one example of the second indication given in paragraph 0092 of the claimed invention’s specification).
Wu does not explicitly disclose:
The network device being a network device of a cell for reestablishment after the ... handover fails
The ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell, or that the terminal device successfully accesses the target cell and an RLF occurs between the terminal device and the target cell
However, Liu does teach:
The network device being a network device of a cell for reestablishment after the ... handover fails
(“A UE 505 [in Fig. 5] may experience an RLF event with the target cell 510 before the handover procedure is ... completed. The UE 505 may attempt to reestablish an RRC connection and/or a radio link with the third cell 520. After successfully reestablishing the RRC connection, the UE 505 may transmit an RLF report including RLF information to the third cell 520” (Liu, 0289).
Here, “the third cell” with which “[t]he UE 505 may attempt to reestablish an RRC connection” maps to “the network device being a network device of a cell for reestablishment”, and
“an RLF event ... before the handover procedure is ... completed” maps to “after the ... handover fails”).
And from the list of:
The ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell, or that the terminal device successfully accesses the target cell and an RLF occurs between the terminal device and the target cell
Liu at least teaches:
The ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell
(“A UE 505 [in Fig. 5] may experience an RLF event with the target cell 510 before the handover procedure is ... completed. The UE 505 may attempt to reestablish an RRC connection and/or a radio link with the third cell 520. After successfully reestablishing the RRC connection, the UE 505 may transmit an RLF report including RLF information to the third cell 520” (Liu, 0289).
Here, “RLF information” for “an RLF event with the target cell 510” maps to “the ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Liu’s practice of reestablishing an RRC connection with a third cell and sending a RLF report to that third cell into Wu’s method for reporting DAPS handover failure. The third base station can provide a reliable alternative for reestablishing a wireless connection if handover fails and the source base station is unavailable.
As to Claim 15:
Wu teaches:
The first indication information comprises first information indicating that the RLF occurs in the source cell in the DAPS handover process
(“[T]he UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102.... [T]o provide indication from MCG radio link control (RLC) that the maximum number of retransmissions has been reached, the UE 101 sets the failureType as rlc-MaxNumRetx” (Wu, 0048, 0054).
Here, “MCG failure information” maps to “the first indication information”,
“rlc-MaxNumRetx” maps to “first information indicating that the RLF occurs in the source cell in the DAPS handover process” because reaching the maximum number of retransmission attempts is an example of a RLF that occurs in the source cell during DAPS handover).
As to Claim 16:
Wu teaches:
The first information indicates at least one of:
(“[T]he UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102” (Wu, 0048,).
Here, “MCG failure information” maps to “the first information”).
A lower layer reports a random access problem of the source cell during execution of the DAPS handover at the source cell; or
(“If the UE 101 initiates a transmission of the MCGFailureInformation message as shown in operation 202, to provide a random access problem indication from a medium access control (MAC) layer of a MCG, the UE 101 sets the failureType as randomAccessProblem” (Wu, 0054).
Here, “a medium access control (MAC) layer” maps to “a lower layer”,
“provide a ... indication” maps to “reports”,
“a random access problem” maps to “a random access problem ... during execution of the DAPS handover” because it is obvious from context that this random access occurs during DAPS handover,
“MCG [master cell group]” maps to “of the source cell”, and
“MCG [master cell group]” maps to “at the source cell”).
A number of Radio Link Control (RLC) retransmissions at the source cell reaches a maximum number of retransmissions during execution of the DAPS handover at the source cell
(“[T]o provide indication from MCG radio link control (RLC) that the maximum number of retransmissions has been reached, the UE 101 sets the failureType as rlc-MaxNumRetx” (Wu, 0048, 0054).
Here, “number of retransmissions” maps to “a number of Radio Link Control (RLC) retransmissions”,
“MCG [master cell group]” maps to “at the source cell”, and
“the maximum number of retransmissions has been reached” maps to “reaches a maximum number of retransmissions during execution of the DAPS handover” because it is obvious from context that this occurs during DAPS handover).
As to Claim 17:
Wu teaches:
A terminal device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory has a computer program stored thereon, and the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory
(“The apparatus includes: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; a receiving circuitry; a transmitting circuitry; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the receiving circuitry and the transmitting circuitry, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned method performed by a UE” (Wu, 0006).
Here, “a UE” maps to “a terminal device”,
“includes” maps to “comprising”,
“a processor” maps to “a processor”,
“the non-transitory computer-readable medium” maps to “a memory”,
“having stored thereon computer-executable instructions” maps to “has a computer program stored thereon”,
“computer-executable instructions cause the processor” maps to “the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program”, and
“a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions” maps to “the computer program stored in the memory”).
Transmit first indication information to a network device
(“[T]he UE will transmit a failure report to the network.... The method may be performed by a UE. The method includes: ... transmitting a RLF report related to the RLF” (Wu, 0002, 0009).
Here, “transmitting” maps to “transmit”,
“a RLF report” maps to “first indication information”, and
“to the network” maps to “to a network device”).
The first indication information indicates that a Radio Link Failure (RLF) occurs between the terminal device and a source cell in a handover process of the terminal device from the source cell to a target cell in a handover process of the terminal device from the source cell to a target cell using a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover scheme
(“[T]he UE releases a source cell of the source BS after successfully completing a random access procedure to the target BS.... The method may be performed by a UE. The method includes: ... performing a DAPS handover procedure; and in response to a radio link failure (RLF) of a source link for a master cell group (MCG) during the DAPS handover procedure, transmitting a RLF report related to the RLF after successfully completing the DAPS handover procedure” (Wu, 0003, 0009).
Here, “a RLF report” maps to “the first indication information”,
“related to the RLF” maps to “indicates that a Radio Link Failure (RLF) occurs”,
“a UE” maps to “the terminal device”,
“a source link for a master cell group” maps to “the source cell”,
“a DAPS handover procedure” maps to “a handover process”,
“the target BS” maps to “a target cell”, and
“the DAPS handover procedure” maps to “a handover process ... using a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover scheme”).
The first indication information comprises a type value
(“The RLF report includes information related to a RLF of a source link for a MCG during a DAPS handover procedure.... [T]he RLF report may include at least one of ... a connection failure type ... The connection failure type may be configured as a RLF in source” (Wu, 0174).
Here, “the RLF report” maps to “the first indication information”,
“include” maps to “comprises”, and
“connection failure type” maps to “a type value”).
The type value indicates that a type of an RLF report reported by the terminal device is an RLF report of the RLF occurring in the source cell during the DAPS handover
(“[T]he target BS receives a UE information response including a RLF report. The RLF report includes information related to a RLF of a source link for a MCG during a DAPS handover procedure.... [T]he RLF report may include at least one of ... a connection failure type ... The connection failure type may be configured as a RLF in source” (Wu, 0174).
Here, “connection failure type” maps to “the type value”,
“configured as” maps to “indicates”,
“connection failure type” maps to “a type of an RLF report”,
“receives a UE information response” maps to “reported by the terminal device”, and
“a RLF in source” maps to “an RLF report of the RLF occurring in the source cell during the DAPS handover”).
Transmitting, by the terminal device, second indication information to the network device before transmitting the first indication information, the second indication information indicating whether there is DAPS handover failure information in an RLF report reported by the terminal device
(“After a DAPS handover procedure is successfully completed, the UE accesses to a target cell [sic]. (2) UE transmits an indication of rlf-InfoAvailable to a target BS. (3) After receiving the indication from the UE, the target BS transmits UE information request to the UE. (4) After receiving the UE information request from the target BS, the UE transmits UE information response including a RLF-report to the target BS” (Wu, 0188-0191).
Here, “transmits” maps to “transmitting”,
“UE” maps to “the terminal device”,
“rlf-InfoAvailable” maps to “second indication information”,
“a target BS” maps to “the network device”,
“After receiving the indication from the UE” maps to “before transmitting the first indication information” because the UE transmits the “RLF-report” after sending “rlf-InfoAvailable,
“rlf-InfoAvailable” maps to “the second indication indicating whether there is DAPS handover failure information in an RLF report reported by the terminal device” because this is one example of the second indication given in paragraph 0092 of the claimed invention’s specification).
Wu does not explicitly disclose:
The network device being a network device of a cell for reestablishment after the ... handover fails
The ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell, or that the terminal device successfully accesses the target cell and an RLF occurs between the terminal device and the target cell
However, Liu does teach:
The network device being a network device of a cell for reestablishment after the ... handover fails
(“A UE 505 [in Fig. 5] may experience an RLF event with the target cell 510 before the handover procedure is ... completed. The UE 505 may attempt to reestablish an RRC connection and/or a radio link with the third cell 520. After successfully reestablishing the RRC connection, the UE 505 may transmit an RLF report including RLF information to the third cell 520” (Liu, 0289).
Here, “the third cell” with which “[t]he UE 505 may attempt to reestablish an RRC connection” maps to “the network device being a network device of a cell for reestablishment”, and
“an RLF event ... before the handover procedure is ... completed” maps to “after the ... handover fails”).
And from the list of:
The ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell, or that the terminal device successfully accesses the target cell and an RLF occurs between the terminal device and the target cell
Liu at least teaches:
The ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell
(“A UE 505 [in Fig. 5] may experience an RLF event with the target cell 510 before the handover procedure is ... completed. The UE 505 may attempt to reestablish an RRC connection and/or a radio link with the third cell 520. After successfully reestablishing the RRC connection, the UE 505 may transmit an RLF report including RLF information to the third cell 520” (Liu, 0289).
Here, “RLF information” for “an RLF event with the target cell 510” maps to “the ... handover failure information is used to indicate that the terminal device fails to access the target cell”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Liu’s practice of reestablishing an RRC connection with a third cell and sending a RLF report to that third cell into Wu’s method for reporting DAPS handover failure. The third base station can provide a reliable alternative for reestablishing a wireless connection if handover fails and the source base station is unavailable.
As to Claim 18:
Wu teaches:
A network device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory has a computer program stored thereon, and the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory to perform the method according to claim 13
(“The apparatus includes: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; a receiving circuitry; a transmitting circuitry; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the receiving circuitry and the transmitting circuitry, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned method performed by a BS” (Wu, 0012).
Here, “a BS” maps to “a network device”,
“includes” maps to “comprising”,
“a processor” maps to “a processor”,
“the non-transitory computer-readable medium” maps to “a memory”,
“having stored thereon computer-executable instructions” maps to “has a computer program stored thereon”,
“computer-executable instructions cause the processor” maps to “the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program”,
“a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions” maps to “the computer program stored in the memory”, and
see Claim 13 which describes how Wu and Liu render obvious “perform the method according to claim 13”).
As to Claim 19:
Wu teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program that causes a computer to perform the method according to claim 1
(“The apparatus includes: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; a receiving circuitry; a transmitting circuitry; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the receiving circuitry and the transmitting circuitry, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned method performed by a UE” (Wu, 0006).
Here, “the non-transitory computer-readable medium” maps to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”,
“having stored thereon computer-executable instructions” maps to “storing a computer program”,
“the computer executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned method” maps to “a computer program that causes a computer to perform the method”, and
see claim 1 for details on how Wu and Liu render obvious “the method according to claim 1”).
As to Claim 20:
Wu teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program that causes a computer to perform the method according to claim 13
(“The apparatus includes: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; a receiving circuitry; a transmitting circuitry; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the receiving circuitry and the transmitting circuitry, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned method performed by a BS” (Wu, 0012).
Here, “the non-transitory computer-readable medium” maps to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”,
“having stored thereon computer-executable instructions” maps to “storing a computer program”,
“the computer executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned method” maps to “a computer program that causes a computer to perform the method”, and
see claim 1 for details on how Wu and Liu render obvious “the method according to claim 13”).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2023/0189112 A1) in view of Liu (US 2022/0141735 A1) and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2023/0164866 A1, hereinafter “Chang”).
As to Claim 10:
The combination of Wu and Liu does not explicitly disclose:
The request information comprises second information indicating whether the terminal device is to report the RLF report
Transmitting, by the terminal device, the response information to the network device when the second information is configured as TRUE
However, Chang does describe a method for quickly recovering from radio link failure in a master cell group.
Specifically, Chang teaches:
The request information comprises second information indicating whether the terminal device is to report the RLF report
(“[T]he UE receives a UEinformationrequest message from the network side for requesting the UE to report the RLF report (an rlf-ReportReq information element is set to true)” (Chang, 0060).
Here, “a UEinformationrequest message” maps to “the request information”, and
“rlf-ReportReq” maps to “second information indicating whether the terminal device is to report the RLF report”).
Transmitting, by the terminal device, the response information to the network device when the second information is configured as TRUE
(“[T]he UE receives a UEinformationrequest message from the network side for requesting the UE to report the RLF report (an rlf-ReportReq information element is set to true)” (Chang, 0060).
Here, “UE to report” maps to “transmitting, by the terminal device ... to the network device” because it is obvious from context that the report is going to a network device,
“the RLF report” maps to “the response information”, and
“rlf-ReportReq information element is set to true” maps to “the second information is configured as TRUE”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chang’s practice of using the rlf-ReportReq field in the UE information request to instruct the UE to send an RLF report into Wu’s method for reporting RLF during DAPS handover. The rlf-ReportReq field provides an efficient and easy way for the base station to indicate with a binary value whether it wants to receive a report from the UE.
As to Claim 11:
The combination of Wu and Liu does not explicitly disclose:
The second information is an RLF report request, rlf-ReportReq, field
However, Chang does teach:
The second information is an RLF report request, rlf-ReportReq, field
(“[T]he UE receives a UEinformationrequest message from the network side for requesting the UE to report the RLF report (an rlf-ReportReq information element is set to true)” (Chang, 0060).
Here, “an rlf-ReportReq information element” maps to “the second information is an RLF report request, rlf-ReportReq, field”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chang’s practice of using the rlf-ReportReq field in the UE information request to instruct the UE to send an RLF report into Wu’s method for reporting RLF during DAPS handover. The rlf-ReportReq field provides an efficient and easy way for the base station to indicate with a binary value whether it wants to receive a report from the UE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Chirag Shah, can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights