DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed 13 April 2026. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Doctrine of Laches
This application is a continuation of application serial number 13/520,924 filed on 09 July 2012. In the prosecution record of said application, applicant filed seven requests for continued examination prior to the instant continuation. Applicant’s present amendments appear to be more verbose recitation of the already claimed features and do not appear to change the scope of claims of the instant application. Numerous consecutive sets of claims in the parent application also appear to not provide any substantive amendments over the already claimed subject matter in the record.
Applicant is advised that any future request for continued examination be accompanied by a substantive amendment to advance prosecution or the next request for continued examination of this series may be rejected by invoking the equitable doctrine of laches, absent any substantive amendment to advance prosecution.
The doctrine of laches, meaning undue delay in claiming one's rights, may result in the loss of those rights. In this case, the loss may be the right to a patent.
The case record shows a plurality of amendments with no substantive amendments to advance prosecution, which, in effect, may be using the Patent Office and patent laws as a means for officially suppressing or overlooking any invention disclosed, but not yet claimed, thereby obtaining inequitable benefits of the patent system.
Prompt disclosure to the public, with no undue delay, is required for consideration of a patent grant. See Ex parte Hull, 191 USPQ 157, 1975 WL 20742 [USPTO Bd. of Apps.] 1975.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Marinier et al. (US 2011/0021154 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Marinier appears to disclose a method comprising:
communicating data on a configured set of component carriers of a wireless or mobile communications system(Fig. 1, [0009], [0011] disclosing an LTE-A system operated with carrier aggregation; [0020]-[0026] disclosing the WTRU is configured with a set of component carriers for PDCCH monitoring, PDSCH reception, etc.; [0030] disclosing “the WTRU 100 is in communication with the Node-B 150, and both are configured to perform a method wherein UL transmissions from the WTRU 100 are transmitted to the Node-B 150 using multiple UL carriers 65, and downlink transmissions are handled using multiple carriers 70” [0038] disclosing the WTRU is configured or re-configured to operate with multiple carriers via RRC signaling either dedicated or from system information.);
detecting a trigger for connection re-establishment, wherein the detecting comprises detecting a radio link failure of a predefined component carrier, wherein the predefined component carrier comprises a primary component carrier of the configured set of component carriers ([0083]-[0087] disclosing detection of a partial radio link failure comprising: detection of a failure of a downlink carrier configured with PDCCH; detection of a failure of a downlink carrier configured with PDSCH, but not PDCCH; detection of a failure of one of the carriers WTRU is configured to operate with has a specific role (e.g., a PPC, anchor carrier or the DL carrier corresponding to the "special cell" or the "serving cell"; [0095]-[0096] “A primary re-establishment procedure may be triggered once the WTRU has detected a radio link failure on the DL primary carrier);
identifying at least one component carrier in the configured set that can be used for the connection re-establishment ([0135] disclosing “Instead of performing normal cell selection procedure, the WTRU selects a cell corresponding to one of the carriers it is configured with for which a radio problem does not exist.);
requesting for connection re-establishment through the at least one identified component carrier ([0136] disclosing “The WTRU may transmit the RRC connection re-establishment message by initiating a RACH procedure using resources broadcast by the selected cell”); and
prioritizing at least one cell providing at least one of the component carriers of the configured set over other cells available for the connection re-establishment in response to a radio link failure, wherein upon the radio link failure of the primary component carrier of the configured set, the at least one of the component carriers of the configured set of component carriers is prioritized for the connection re-establishment, wherein a cell that corresponds to a component carrier that belongs to the configured set is prioritized over cells corresponding to component carriers that do not belong to the configured set of component carriers ([0135] disclosing “ Instead of performing normal cell selection procedure, the WTRU selects a cell corresponding to one of the carriers it is configured with for which a radio problem does not exist. The WTRU may pick this carrier according to pre-determined or pre-signaled priority, or according to signal quality, or by prioritizing a DL carrier paired to an UL carrier on which PUCCH resources exist”; [0083]-[0087] and [0095]-[0096] “A primary re-establishment procedure may be triggered once the WTRU has detected a radio link failure on the DL primary carrier…The primary re- establishment procedure may be limited to the subset of DL carriers within the cell that the WTRU 100 has been configured to actively receive...").
Regarding claim 2, Marinier appears to disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
performing a different re-establishment procedure for a component carrier belonging to the configured set than what would be performed for other carriers available as component carriers ([0135]-[0136], [0141]-[0142] disclosing the WTRU picks a carrier of the configured set that has not failed based on priority instead of doing normal cell selection procedure and instead of doing RRC connection re-establishment, the WTRU initiates a random access procedure utilizing resources broadcast by a carrier that has not failed).
Regarding claim 3, Marinier appears to disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the requesting comprises:
sending of a reduced connection re-establishment request on the at least one identified component carrier ([0135]-[0136], [0141]-[0142] disclosing the WTRU picks a carrier of the configured set that has not failed based on priority instead of doing normal cell selection procedure and instead of doing RRC connection re-establishment, the WTRU initiates a random access procedure utilizing resources broadcast by a carrier that has not failed).
Regarding claim 4, Marinier appears to disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
triggering the connection re-establishment in response to the radio link failure of the predefined component carrier ([0095]-[0096] “A primary re-establishment procedure may be triggered once the WTRU has detected a radio link failure on the DL primary carrier).
Regarding claim 5, Marinier appears to disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connection re-establishment comprises re-establishment of at least one cell corresponding to at least one of the components carriers of the configured set ([0095]-[0096] “A primary re-establishment procedure may be triggered once the WTRU has detected a radio link failure on the DL primary carrier; [0141]-[0142]).
Regarding claim 6, Marinier appears to disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
generating a reduced re-establishment request; and sending the generated reduced re-establishment request on the at least one identified component carrier ([0135]-[0136], [0141]-[0142] disclosing the WTRU picks a carrier of the configured set that has not failed based on priority instead of doing normal cell selection procedure and instead of doing RRC connection re-establishment, the WTRU initiates a random access procedure utilizing resources broadcast by a carrier that has not failed).
Regarding claims 7-12, the claims are directed towards a control apparatus for a communication device adapted for communications on a configured set of component carriers of a wireless or mobile communications system, the control apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the control apparatus at least to perform the method of claims 1-6. Marinier appears to disclose such control apparatus ([0185]-[0187]); accordingly, the claims are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1-6.
Regarding claim 13, Marinier appears to disclose a mobile communication device comprising the control apparatus according to claim 7 (Fig. 2, 100, [0005], [0011], [0018], [0185]-[0187] disclosing the WTRU as a user equipment, mobile station and the like performs the techniques as disclosed and cited above with respect to claim 7).
Regarding claim 14-19, the claims are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon for performing at least the method of claims 1-6. Marinier appears to disclose such article of manufacture ([0185]-[0187]); accordingly, the claims are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1-6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the reference of record Marinier does not disclose, “prioritizing at least one cell providing at least one of the component carriers of the configured set…wherein upon the radio link failure of the primary component carrier of the configured set, the at least one of the component carriers of the configured set of component carriers is prioritized for the connection re-establishment.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F .2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N. V. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm 'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference ... need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it 'd[oes] not expressly spell out' all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would 'at once envisage' the claimed arrangement or combination.") (quoting In re Petering, 301F.2d676, 681 (CCPA 1962)).
Applicant’s remarks admit that Marinier discloses “[0135] 1) Instead of performing normal cell selection procedure, the WTRU selects a cell corresponding to one of the carriers it is configured with for which a radio problem does not exist”; and “[0096] A primary re-establishment procedure may be triggered once the WTRU has detected a radio link failure on the DL primary carrier…The primary re- establishment procedure may be limited to the subset of DL carriers within the cell that the WTRU 100 has been configured to actively receive..." (remarks pp 11-12 emphasis original). It is in these features of Marinier emphasized by applicant that appears to disclose the disputed feature. That is to say, the techniques are configured to select from the configured set of component carriers over other component carriers that are not in the configured set for the primary re-establishment procedure when the primary component carrier has failed. This appears to disclose the claimed prioritization because the techniques disclosed by Marinier limit the set of component carriers to the subset of DL carriers already configured for the primary re-establishment procedure. One of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage this to be a prioritization of the subset of DL carriers already configured over any other DL carriers that are not part of said subset.
Conclusion
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 Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights