DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 29, 32 and 35 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 29, 32 and 35, Examiner suggest changing “a secondary cell is added to early” to “a secondary cell is added too early.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 21-23, 25-27, 31, 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2023/0239750 A1) in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2024/0244471 A1, hereinafter “Krishnan”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Wu teaches a method performed by a base station in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity, a downlink radio access network (RAN) configuration transfer message including an inter-system handover (HO) report, wherein the inter-system HO report includes a report type indicating a problem associated with an inter-system HO and information on the inter-system HO corresponding to the report type, wherein the report type comprises a type corresponding to a mobility failure for voice fallback (figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, ¶ [00151]-¶ [0055], ¶ [0058], ¶ [0062], If the handover failure occurs during the handover procedure, the UE may transmit RLF report information. In an embodiment, if the mobility command message includes a voice fallback indication, the RLF report information includes an indicator to indicate that the handover procedure is used for a voice fallback operation. ¶ [0063], ¶ [0088], ¶ [0093], a RLF happens in 3G after the UE succeeds in the handover procedure within a period. ¶ [0096], the UE transmits a RLF report to the serving cell. ¶ [0065], the BS which is serving the UE transmits the message including the RLF report information to an AMF, and the AMF is associated with the source NR cell. Then, the AMF transmits the message including the RLF report information to the source BS associated with the source NR cell. ¶ [0064], ¶ [0134], ¶ [0147], the RLF report information includes an indicator to indicate that a handover procedure is used for a voice fallback operation), wherein the mobility failure for voice fallback comprises a radio link failure (RLF) occurred after a successful handover triggered due to a voice fallback (¶ [0088], ¶ [0090], The MobilityFromNRCommand message includes voiceFallbackIndication. ¶ [0093] a RLF happens in 3G after the UE succeeds in the handover procedure within a period. ¶ [0096]), and wherein the information on the inter-system HO includes a source cell identity (ID) for the mobility failure for voice fallback, a failure cell ID for the mobility failure for voice fallback (¶ [0102], The UTRAN cell receives the RLF report from the UE. Then, the UTRAN cell transfers the RLF report as a container to a core network (CN). The node of the UTRAN CN will forward the information including the RLF report to an AMF associated with the source NR cell. [0103] (8) The AMF will transfer the received information including the RLF report to the source NR BS).
Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the information on the inter-system HO includes a re-connect Cell ID for the mobility failure for voice fallback.
Krishnan teaches wherein the information on the HO includes a source cell identity (ID) for the mobility failure, a failure cell ID for the mobility failure, a re-connect Cell ID for the mobility failure (¶ [0097], ¶ [0102], a UE sends an RLF report to assist a network in identifying coverage holes with the following information: Previous cell information (e.g., CGI), failed cell information (e.g., CGI), reconnect cell information (e.g., CGI), RLF cause, time until reconnection, time since failure, and other relevant information. ¶ [0103] and ¶ [0104]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a re-connect cell ID for the mobility failure for voice fallback in information on the inter-system HO in the system of Wu to assist a network in identifying coverage holes (¶ [0102] of Krishnan).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Wu in view of Krishnan teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the mobility failure for voice fallback further comprises failure during a handover triggered due to the voice fallback (Wu: ¶ [0062],If the handover failure occurs during the handover procedure, the UE may transmit RLF report information. In an embodiment, if the mobility command message includes a voice fallback indication, the RLF report information includes an indicator to indicate that the handover procedure is used for a voice fallback operation. ¶ [0065]).
Regarding claims 21 and 25, Wu teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising: at least one transceiver; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver; and at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (fig. 9, ¶ [0159]), storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination to cause the UE to: identify, a mobility failure that occurred due a radio link failure, RLF, after a successful handover triggered due to a voice fallback (¶ [0088], ¶ [0093], a RLF happens in 3G after the UE succeeds in the handover procedure within a period); and transmit, to a base station, a UE information response message including an RLF report based on the mobility failure, and wherein the RLF report includes information on the inter-system HO; wherein the inter-system HO report includes a report type indicating a problem associated with an inter-system HO corresponding to the report type and information on the inter-system HO corresponding to the report type, wherein the report type comprises a type corresponding to a mobility failure for voice fallback (figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, ¶ [00151], If a failure occurs during an inter-RAT handover procedure. ¶ [0053]-¶ [0055], ¶ [0058], ¶ [0062], If the handover failure occurs during the handover procedure, the UE may transmit RLF report information. In an embodiment, if the mobility command message includes a voice fallback indication, the RLF report information includes an indicator to indicate that the handover procedure is used for a voice fallback operation. ¶ [0063], ¶ [0088], ¶ [0093], a RLF happens in 3G after the UE succeeds in the handover procedure within a period. ¶ [0096], the UE transmits a RLF report to the serving cell. ¶ [0065], the BS which is serving the UE transmits the message including the RLF report information to an AMF, and the AMF is associated with the source NR cell. Then, the AMF transmits the message including the RLF report information to the source BS associated with the source NR cell. ¶ [0064], ¶ [0134], ¶ [0147], the RLF report information includes an indicator to indicate that a handover procedure is used for a voice fallback operation), wherein the information on the inter-system HO includes a source cell ID for the mobility failure for the voice fallback, a failure cell ID for the mobility failure for the voice fallback (¶ [0064], the RLF report information includes an ID of the target cell, ¶ [0101], For example, a RLF report may include an ID of the target UTRAN Cell of the failed handover procedure. In an embodiment, a field “FailedPCellid-UTRAN” or “FailedPCellid-UTRA” is used to indicate an ID of the target UTRAN cell in which a RLF is detected, ¶ [0132], the RLF report information includes an ID of the source NR cell, ¶ [0141], An ID of the source cell which transmits the RRC release message including voiceFallbackIndication).
Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the information on the inter-system HO includes a re-connect cell ID for the mobility failure for voice fallback.
Krishnan teaches wherein the information on the HO includes a source cell ID for the mobility failure, a failure cell ID for the mobility failure, a re-connect Cell ID for the mobility failure (¶ [0097], ¶ [0102], a UE sends an RLF report to assist a network in identifying coverage holes with the following information: Previous cell information (e.g., CGI), failed cell information (e.g., CGI), reconnect cell information (e.g., CGI), RLF cause, time until reconnection, time since failure, and other relevant information. ¶ [0103] and ¶ [0104]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a re-connect cell ID for the mobility failure for voice fallback in information on the inter-system HO in the system of Wu to assist a network in identifying coverage holes (¶ [0102] of Krishnan).
Regarding claims 22 and 26, Wu in view of Krishnan teaches the UE of claim 25, wherein the mobility failure further comprises a failure during a handover triggered due to the voice fallback (Wu: ¶ [0062],If the handover failure occurs during the handover procedure, the UE may transmit RLF report information. In an embodiment, if the mobility command message includes a voice fallback indication, the RLF report information includes an indicator to indicate that the handover procedure is used for a voice fallback operation. ¶ [0065]).
Regarding claims 23 and 27, Wu in view of Krishnan teaches the UE of claim 25, wherein the RLF report is transmitted via a radio resource control, RRC, signaling (Wu: fig. 4, ¶ [0056], the UE transmits the UEInformationResponse message including a RLF report to the source BS).
Regarding claims 31, 34 and 37, Wu in view of Krishnan teaches the method of claim 5.
Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the information on the inter-system HO further includes a service interruption time associated with the mobility failure for voice fallback.
Krishnan teaches wherein the information on the HO further includes a service interruption time associated with the mobility failure (¶ [0103], ¶ [0102] and ¶ [0104]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include, in the information on the inter-system HO, a service interruption time associated with the mobility failure for voice fallback in the system of Wu in view of Krishnan to provide an enhanced RLF report.
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Krishnan as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2022/0159768 A1, hereinafter “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Krishnan teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the downlink RAN configuration transfer message is received, as set forth above
Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the downlink RAN configuration transfer message is received via a next generation application protocol (NGAP).
However, it is well-known in the art that in NR implementations, the application protocol may be an NG application protocol layer (NGAP or NG-AP) for the NG interface defined between the NG-RAN node and the AMF, as evidenced by ¶ [0191] of Zhu.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize NGAP to receive the downlink configuration transfer message in the system of Wu in view of Krishnan to further improve industrial applicability.
9. Claims 29, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Krishnan as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2024/0298223 A1).
Regarding claims 29, 32 and 35, Wu in view of Krishnan teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the report type further comprises a type corresponding to a too early
Handover (Krishnan, ¶ [0096]).
Wu does not explicitly teach the type corresponding to the too early handover indicates a secondary cell is added to early.
Liu teaches determining that a failure belongs to an event where a secondary cell is added to early (¶ [0121]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to include a type corresponding to the too early handover indicating a second cell is added too early in the system of Wu in view of Krishnan to further improve industrial applicability.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 30, 33 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 30, 33 and 36, prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the information on the inter-system HO further includes frequency
information of the source cell ID, frequency information of the failure cell ID, and
frequency information of the re-connect cell ID” in combination of limitations specified in the base claim.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments filed on June 26, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 PM).
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.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
