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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts:
That although Samsung and 38.331 specify the UE determining whether these two conditions (i.e. unable to comply or protocol error) exist, Samsung and 38.331 do not specify the UE assigning either of them as a "failure cause" (e.g., rlf-Cause) nor including them in a "failure report" (e.g., RLF-report) sent to the network after the UE reestablishes it connection.
As an initial matter, with reference to the claim language of claim 36, a failure report merely includes an indication of the failure cause, but does not specify what information comprises said indication. The claim is silent with respect to the indication of the failure cause being an explicit indication. In fact, claim 41, which depends from claim 36, clearly states that the indication of the failure cause can be either an explicit indication or an implicit indication. Applicant appears to take the approach that the indication described in claim 36, which is broader in scope than claim 41, excludes the possibility of an implicit indication. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 36 – specifically the indication of the failure cause – said indication may be interpreted as being an implicit indication.
Referring to the applied prior art, Samsung discloses determining the existence of the conditions of being unable to comply with a configuration in a mobility command or if there is a protocol error associated with the inter-RAT information included in the command (see 5.4.3.5). Further, Samsung discloses (see Id.) that said conditions trigger storing handover failure information in VarRLF-Report. 3GPP (38.331) discloses (see 5.3.7.4) that the reestablishmentCause (in an inter-RAT mobility from NR failure as specified in 5.4.3.5) is set to handoverFailure.
The Examiner notes that such an indication would be an implicit indication of a failure which is triggered by either of the aforementioned conditions.
The Examiner suggests that if Applicant wishes to convey that the indication of the failure cause is to mean that the indication explicitly indicates the actual cause, then Applicant should consider amending the independent claims to include “wherein the indication of the failure cause is an explicit indication in the failure report” and that claims 41-43 should be cancelled (i.e. to avoid contradiction).
Similar rationale and suggestions as indicated above also would be applicable to claims 44 and 54.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 36-39, 41-43, 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Correction on Mobility from NR Failure for Inter-RAT MRO EUTRA” (R2-2100184, hereinafter Samsung) with publicly available date of 01/15/2021 which further incorporates by reference “3GPP TS 38.331 V16.0.0 (2020-03)” (hereinafter 3GPP).
Re: Claim(s) 36, 54
Samsung discloses a method for a user equipment, UE, to report failure of an inter-radio access technology (RAT) mobility procedure from a source cell to a target cell in a wireless network, the method comprising: receiving, from a source node serving the source cell, a command to perform an inter- RAT mobility procedure towards the target cell, wherein the target cell uses a different RAT than the source cell (implicit – see 5.4.3.5 – MobilityFromNRCommand message. NR to EUTRA disclosed);
detecting a failure associated with the inter-RAT mobility procedure, wherein the failure cause is one of the following: that the UE was unable to comply with a configuration included in the command, or a protocol error associated with inter-RAT information included in the command (5.4.3.5 – see “else if statements” where UE is unable to comply with any part of the configuration included in the MobilityFromNRCommand message or if there is a protocol error in the inter RAT information included in the MobilityFromNRCommand message);
and sending a failure report, including an indication of the failure cause, to a node serving a cell in which the UE connected to the wireless network after detecting the failure (5.4.3.5 – VarRLF-Report stores handover failure information. See 3GPP 5.3.7.4 (incorporated by reference) – reestablishmentCause set to value handoverFailure and is included in RRCReestablishmentRequest message and is submitted to lower layers for transmission).
Samsung further discloses a network node comprising radio transceiver circuity and processing circuitry (inherent, UE disclosed throughout) as required by claim 54.
Re: Claim(s) 37
Samsung discloses wherein the inter-RAT mobility procedure is one of the following: handover; conditional handover; dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover; dual- connectivity (DC) setup; or DC modification (entire document – handover from NR to E-UTRA).
Re: Claim(s) 38
Samsung discloses wherein one of the following applies: the source cell uses a New Radio (NR) RAT and the target cell uses a UTRA RAT or an evolved UTRA (E-UTRA) RAT; or. the source cell uses an E-UTRA RAT and the target cell uses an NR RAT (entire document – handover from NR to E-UTRA).
Re: Claim(s) 39
Samsung discloses wherein one or more of the following applies: the failure report is a radio link failure (RLF) report; and the failure report also includes a failure type indication, which indicates that the failure is associated with an inter-RAT handover (5.4.3.5 – VarRLF-Report).
Re: Claim(s) 41
Samsung discloses wherein the indication of the failure cause is one of the following: an explicit indication in the failure report; or an implicit indication based on including in the failure report first information associated with the failure and omitting from the failure report second information not associated with the failure (5.4.3.5 – VarRLF-Report stores handover failure information. See 3GPP 5.3.7.4 (incorporated by reference) – reestablishmentCause set to value handoverFailure and is included in RRCReestablishmentRequest message and is submitted to lower layers for transmission).
Re: Claim(s) 42
Claim 42 further limits an alternative of claim 41. Since Samsung teaches "an explicit indication in the failure report", the limitations of claim 42 have been met.
Re: Claim(s) 43
Claim 43 further limits an alternative of claim 41. Since Samsung teaches "an explicit indication in the failure report", the limitations of claim 43 have been met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung (with incorporated reference to 3GPPas previously noted above) as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of US 20210211952 A1 to Teyeb; Oumer et al.
Re: Claim(s) 40
Samsung discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 36 above.
Samsung does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: the UE is in dual connectivity with a master cell group (MCG) and a secondary cell group (SCG) before receiving the command; the failure is associated with either the MCG or the SCG; and one of the following applies: the failure report is a message specific to the cell group associated with the failure; or the failure report indicates whether the failure is associated with the MCG or the SCG.
However, attention is directed to Teyeb which discloses said limitation (0093 - In NR or LTE, if a UE in RRC_CONNECTED detects radio link failure (RLF) on the master cell group (MCG) or declares a handover failure (reconfiguration with sync in NR, triggered upon the expiry of the timer T304), the UE selects a “suitable cell” and initiates an RRC reestablishment. 0095-0111 – reference is made to the same RRC Connection Reestablishment procedure as disclosed by Samsung.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Samsung invention by employing the teaching as taught by Teyeb to provide the ability to perform the same RRC Connection Reestablishment procedure as disclosed by Samsung in the given scenario presented by Teyeb (i.e. RLR on MCG). The motivation for the combination is given by Teyeb (0043-0044).
Claim(s) 44-53, 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung (with incorporated reference to 3GPPas previously noted above) in view of US 20100173633 A1 to Catovic; Amer et al.
Re: Claim(s) 44, 55
Samsung discloses a method for a network node to handle failed inter-RAT mobility procedures of user equipment, UEs, in a wireless network, the method comprising: receiving a failure report about a UE's failed inter-RAT mobility procedure from a source cell served by a source node to a target cell served by a target node, wherein the target cell uses a different RAT than the source cell (5.4.3.5 – VarRLF-Report stores handover failure information. See 3GPP 5.3.7.4 (incorporated by reference) – reestablishmentCause set to value handoverFailure and is included in RRCReestablishmentRequest message and is submitted to lower layers for transmission. 5.4.3.5 – see “else if statements” where UE is unable to comply with any part of the configuration included in the MobilityFromNRCommand message or if there is a protocol error in the inter RAT information included in the MobilityFromNRCommand message),
and wherein the failure report indicates one of the following failure causes: that the UE was unable to comply with a configuration included in a command to perform the inter-RAT mobility procedure, or a protocol error associated with inter-RAT information included in the command (See Id.).
Samsung does/do not appear to explicitly disclose that based on the failure cause indication, performing one or more operations that prevent failures in subsequent mobility procedures involving the source cell and/or the target cell.
However, attention is directed to Catovic which discloses said limitation (Figs. 4 and 11 – RLF Type2 occurs when attempting handover from 404 to 406. 402 performs Connection Reestablishment with 408. 408 in turn sends RLF Report to 406 which in turn sends a Handover Report to 404. See 1106-1122).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Samsung invention by employing the teaching as taught by Catovic to provide the ability for one or more operations to be performed to prevent failures in subsequent mobility procedures involving the source and target cells (i.e. 402 and 406 of Catovic).The motivation for the combination is given by Catovic (0004).
Samsung in view of Catovic further discloses a network node comprising radio network interface circuity and processing circuitry (inherent, network node disclosed throughout) as required by claim 55.
Re: Claim(s) 45
Samsung in view of Catovic discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 44 above.
Samsung does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: the failure report is received by the source node from a node serving a further cell in which the UE connected to the wireless network after the failed inter-RAT mobility procedure; and the one or more operations include one or more of the following: refraining from requesting subsequent mobility procedures towards the target cell for UEs served by the source cell; and sending the failure cause indication to the target node.
However, further attention is directed to Catovic which discloses said limitation (Figs. 4 and 11 – RLF Type2 occurs when attempting handover from 404 to 406. 402 performs Connection Reestablishment with 408. 408 in turn sends RLF Report to 406 which in turn sends a Handover Report to 404. See 1106-1122).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Samsung invention by employing the teaching as taught by Catovic to provide the ability for one or more operations to be performed to prevent failures in subsequent mobility procedures involving the source and target cells (i.e. 402 and 406 of Catovic).The motivation for the combination is given by Catovic (0004).
Re: Claim(s) 46
Samsung in view of Catovic discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 44 above.
Samsung does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: the failure report is received from the UE by a node serving a cell in which the UE connected to the wireless network after the failed inter-RAT mobility procedure; and the one or more operations include one or more of the following: sending the failure report to the source node; determining the target node based on an identifier of the target cell included in the failure report; and when the indicated failure cause is the protocol error, sending the failure cause indication the to the determined target node.
However, further attention is directed to Catovic which discloses said limitation (Figs. 4 and 11 – RLF Type2 occurs when attempting handover from 404 to 406. 402 performs Connection Reestablishment with 408. 408 in turn sends RLF Report to 406 which in turn sends a Handover Report to 404. See 1106-1122).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Samsung invention by employing the teaching as taught by Catovic to provide the ability for one or more operations to be performed to prevent failures in subsequent mobility procedures involving the source and target cells (i.e. 402 and 406 of Catovic).The motivation for the combination is given by Catovic (0004).
Re: Claim(s) 47
Samsung in view of Catovic discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 44 above.
Samsung further discloses all the limitations of claim 47 as analyzed in the rejection of claim 37 since they are directed to the same features.
Re: Claim(s) 48
Samsung in view of Catovic discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 44 above.
Samsung further discloses all the limitations of claim 48 as analyzed in the rejection of claim 38 since they are directed to the same features.
Re: Claim(s) 49
Samsung in view of Catovic discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 44 above.
Samsung further discloses all the limitations of claim 49 as analyzed in the rejection of claim 39 since they are directed to the same features.
Re: Claim(s) 51
Samsung in view of Catovic discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 44 above.
Samsung further discloses all the limitations of claim 51 as analyzed in the rejection of claim 41 since they are directed to the same features.
Re: Claim(s) 52
Samsung in view of Catovic discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 44 above.
Samsung further discloses all the limitations of claim 52 as analyzed in the rejection of claim 42 since they are directed to the same features.
Re: Claim(s) 53
Samsung in view of Catovic discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 44 above.
Samsung further discloses all the limitations of claim 53 as analyzed in the rejection of claim 43 since they are directed to the same features.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung (with incorporated reference to 3GPPas previously noted above) in view of US 20100173633 A1 to Catovic; Amer et al. as applied in the rejection of claim 44 above, and further in view of Teyeb.
Re: Claim(s) 50
Samsung in view of Catovic discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 44 above.
Samsung and Teyeb further disclose all the limitations of claim 50 as analyzed in the rejection of claim 40 since they are directed to the same features.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415