DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 8, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 5, 9, 17, and 21 have been fully considered and in light of cancellation are moot. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 5, 9, 17, and 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, starting on page 8, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections to claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-16, 18-20 and 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Hui does not teach that the primary (anchor) cell is a 4G/LTE cell, the secondary cell is a 5G/NR cell, nor that there is dual connectivity between the two cells. The examiner respectfully disagrees. These features are taught by Hui in paragraphs 34 and 74. Therefore, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang still teach the instant claims as amended.
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) 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 18-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui (WO 2021232397 A1) in view of Ozturk (US 20220039186 A1), and Wang (US 20170048738 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hui discloses:
“A method performed by a first network node, which operates as an eNodeB (eNB) within a 4th Generation (4G) communication system, for selecting a first secondary cell, which operates under a gNodeB (gNB) within a 5th Generation (5G) communication system, for supporting split bearer mode between the eNB and the gNB with a first wireless device in a wireless communications network, wherein the first wireless device is one of a group of wireless devices which have dual connectivity capability to both eNB and BNB for which a first cell provided by the first network node acts as a primary cell within the 4G communication system to which the first wireless device is attached,” ([para 0034]: “The described techniques enable a network (e.g., an LTE network, a New Radio (NR) network, evolved universal terrestrial radio access network NR - dual connectivity (ENDC)) to determine a best quality cell of an SCG for UEs associated with the network.” ; [para 0074]: “The process flow 300 includes UE 115-b (e.g., of one or more UEs), anchor cell 205-b, and SCG cells 210… In some cases, the anchor cell 205-b may be an LTE cell configured to connect the UE 115-b to an LTE network. Additionally, the SCG cells 210 may be 5G SCG cells 210 configured to connect the UE 115-b to an NR network.”)
“and wherein the group of wireless devices are configured to measure signal quality of secondary cell candidates within the 5G communication system, the method comprising… receiving from the first wireless device, a first report comprising a measured signal quality for a respective one or more secondary cell candidate…” ([para 0076]: “Based on receiving the measurement report request, the UE 115-b may transmit the measurement report to the anchor cell 205-b. In some examples, the UE 115-b may detect a received power (e.g., RSRP) for each of the SCG cells 210. The UE 115-b may include the detected power measurements in the measurement report.”)
“selecting, for the first wireless device, among the one or more secondary cell candidate received in the first report, a first secondary cell candidate, based on the first report; instructing the first wireless device to attach to the first secondary cell candidate within the 5G communication system;” ([para 0077]: “At 320, the anchor cell 205-b may transmit an SCG indication to the UE 115-b. The SCG indication may be an RRC reconfiguration message indicating one of the SCG cells 210. In some examples, the anchor cell 205-b may select one of the SCG cells 210 based on the SCG cell 210 with a highest reported RSRP.”)
“detecting that the first wireless device has failed a first series of random access attempts to connect to the first secondary cell candidate; and” ([para 0065]: “In some examples of wireless communications system 100, the anchor cell may track a quantity of SCG failures associated with each SCG and based on an SCG associated with repeated failures may instruct the UE 115 to perform new SCG measurements.” ; [para 0078]: “In some examples, when the SCG indication indicates first SCG cell 210-c, the UE 115-b may attempt to perform a random access procedure. In some cases, however, a failure associated with the communications with the first secondary cell may include a failure associated with performing the random access procedure with the first secondary cell.”)
“in response to detecting that the first wireless device has failed a first series of random access attempts to connect to the first secondary cell candidate” ([para 0081]: “In some instances, when the anchor cell 205-b determines that the quantity of SCG failures satisfies the threshold quantity (e.g., the quantity of SCG failures is greater than the threshold quantity, or greater than or equal to the threshold quantity), the anchor cell 205-b exits Procedure 1.”)
“configuring the first wireless device with a … value that for a time period shall be used by the first wireless device … for determining whether any secondary cell candidate shall be reported to the first network node…” ([para 0082]: “At 345, anchor cell 205-b may initiate a timer (e.g., a timer of a cell selection time period). In some examples, during the cell selection time period the anchor cell 205-b may request UE 115-b to perform a new measurement of SCG cells 210 or cells of one or more other SCGs, or both, based on RSRP measurements as well as signal quality measurements.”)
Hui does not explicitly disclose “configuring the group of wireless devices with a first threshold value relating to a measured signal quality for determining whether one or more secondary cell candidate shall be reported to the first network node for meeting the first threshold value” nor the use of a “second threshold… for meeting the second threshold value, wherein the second threshold value relates to a better signal quality than the first threshold value.”
However, Ozturk discloses the missing feature “configuring the group of wireless devices with a first threshold value relating to a measured signal quality for determining whether one or more secondary cell candidate shall be reported to the first network node” ([para 0077]: “In an aspect, a master node may configure a UE with a cell quality threshold. Example thresholds include Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) level, Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) level, and/or Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) level. These levels may help the UE to control which secondary cells are reported in the SN report. A UE may determine whether or not to report a particular cell based on whether the measurement of RSRP level, RSRQ level, and/or SINR level meets the indicated threshold. If the secondary cell does meet the threshold, the index for the secondary cell may be included in the SN report. If the measurement for the secondary cell does not meet the threshold, the corresponding index may be left out of the SN report. Thus, only secondary cells with RSRP levels, RSRQ levels, and/or SINR levels above a quality threshold for RSRP levels, RSRQ levels, and/or SINR levels are reported.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hui and Ozturk, to modify the secondary cell measurements as disclosed by Hui, to occur based on a signal quality threshold as disclosed by Ozturk. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents the transmission of measurements that are unusable, thus decreasing overhead and improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hui with Ozturk to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Hui in view of Ozturk does not disclose a “second threshold… for meeting the second threshold value, wherein the second threshold value relates to a better signal quality than the first threshold value.”
However, Wang discloses the missing feature “second threshold… for meeting the second threshold value, wherein the second threshold value relates to a better signal quality than the first threshold value.” ([para 0078]: “It is also possible for the eNB to achieve the goal of access control or load-balancing by dynamically configuring the LAA-MRR to its serving UEs, such as to increase or decrease the LAA-involved UE(s) by configuring different RSRP.sub.LAA thresholds. Thus in step S1421, if many UEs have detected weak RSSI.sub.LAA and thus weak interferences, then in step S1422, the eNB may increase the first range 1431 as the second range 1433 so as to decrease the number (quantity) of RSSI.sub.LAA measurements performed per UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang, to modify the secondary cell measurement threshold as disclosed by Hui in view of Ozturk, to be increased to a better signal quality as disclosed by Ozturk. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents the transmission of measurements that are unusable, thus decreasing overhead and improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hui with Ozturk to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hui further discloses “receiving from the first wireless device, a second report comprising a measured signal quality of a respective one or more secondary cell candidate whose measured signal quality meets the second threshold value; and selecting, for the first wireless device, among the one or more secondary cell candidate received in the second report, a second secondary cell candidate based on the second report.” ([para 0084]: “At 355, based on receiving the updated measurement report request at 350, UE 115-b may transmit the generated measurement report to the anchor cell 205-b. In some examples, the UE 115-b may perform both received power measurements as well as signal quality measurements for SCG cells 210, or for cells of one or more other SCGs, or both, based on receiving the updated measurement report request at 350.” ; [para 0085]: “At 360, anchor cell 205-b may sort the cells by the signal quality measurement (e.g., SNR, SINR, RSRQ, etc.). In some examples, the anchor cell 205-b may determine the second SCG cell 210-d has the highest signal quality measurement. In some examples,, the anchor cell 205-b may select the second SCG cell 210-d based on the second SCG cell 210-d having the highest signal quality measurement.” Wherein the second threshold is obvious in view of Ozturk as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 3, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hui further discloses “instructing the first wireless device to attach to the second secondary cell candidate.” ([para 086]: “At 365 the anchor cell 205-b may transmit an SCG indication to the UE 115-b indicating the second SCG cell 210-d to the UE 115-b based on the anchor cell 205-b determining that the second SCG cell 210-d has the highest signal quality measurement.”)
Regarding claim 4, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
The feature “in response to detecting that the first wireless device has failed the first series of random access attempts to connect to the second secondary cell candidate, configuring the first wireless device with a third threshold value that for a time period shall be used by the first wireless device instead of the second threshold value for determining whether any secondary cell candidate shall be reported to the first network node for meeting the third threshold value, wherein the third threshold value relates to a better signal quality than the second threshold value” is essentially repeating the technique of the parent claim in case of another series of failures. The examiner takes official notice that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the technique as disclosed by Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang in response to another series of failures.
Regarding claim 5, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hui further discloses “in response to detecting that the first wireless device has succeeded to random access any of the secondary cell candidate,” ([para 089]: “At 380, the UE 115-b and the second SCG cell 210-d may have successfully set of the RRC connection. Thus, the UE 115-b may be connected to the second wireless network (e.g., an NR network) by the second SCG cell 210-d.”)
Hui does not explicitly disclose “configuring the first wireless device with the first threshold value.”
However, Ozturk discloses the missing feature “configuring the first wireless device with the first threshold value.” ([para 0077]: “In an aspect, a master node may configure a UE with a cell quality threshold.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hui and Ozturk, to modify the secondary cell measurements as disclosed by Hui, to occur based on a signal quality threshold as disclosed by Ozturk. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents the transmission of measurements that are unusable, thus decreasing overhead and improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hui with Ozturk to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hui in view of Ozturk does not disclose a “wherein the better signal quality comprises any one or more out of: a stronger signal strength, a higher Signal-to-Noise and Interference Ratio (SINR), and a longer evaluation period.”
However, Wang discloses the missing feature “wherein the better signal quality comprises any one or more out of: a stronger signal strength, a higher Signal-to-Noise and Interference Ratio (SINR), and a longer evaluation period.” ([para 0078]: “It is also possible for the eNB to achieve the goal of access control or load-balancing by dynamically configuring the LAA-MRR to its serving UEs, such as to increase or decrease the LAA-involved UE(s) by configuring different RSRP.sub.LAA thresholds. Thus in step S1421, if many UEs have detected weak RSSI.sub.LAA and thus weak interferences, then in step S1422, the eNB may increase the first range 1431 as the second range 1433 so as to decrease the number (quantity) of RSSI.sub.LAA measurements performed per UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang, to modify the secondary cell measurement threshold as disclosed by Hui in view of Ozturk, to be increased to a better signal quality as disclosed by Ozturk. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents the transmission of measurements that are unusable, thus decreasing overhead and improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hui with Ozturk to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hui does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first report comprises any one out of: a received Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) value, a received Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) value, and a received Signal-to-Noise and Interference Ratio (SINR) value.”
However, Ozturk discloses the missing feature “wherein the first report comprises any one out of: a received Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) value, a received Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) value, and a received Signal-to-Noise and Interference Ratio (SINR) value.” ([para 0077]: “In an aspect, a master node may configure a UE with a cell quality threshold. Example thresholds include Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) level, Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) level, and/or Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) level.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hui and Ozturk, to modify the secondary cell measurements as disclosed by Hui, to occur based on a signal quality threshold as disclosed by Ozturk. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents the transmission of measurements that are unusable, thus decreasing overhead and improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hui with Ozturk to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hui further discloses “wherein the time period that the second threshold value shall be used by the first wireless device relates to any one out of: a predetermined time, a successful random access attempt, and a failed series of random access attempts.” ([para 0082]: “At 345, anchor cell 205-b may initiate a timer (e.g., a timer of a cell selection time period).”)
Regarding claim 9, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hui further discloses “wherein the first wireless device comprises two or more wireless devices.” ([para 0074]: “The process flow 300 includes UE 115-b (e.g., of one or more UEs), anchor cell 205-b, and SCG cells 210.”)
Regarding claim 10, Hui in view of Ozturk and Wang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hui further discloses “wherein any one or more out of: configuring the group of wireless devices, receiving from the first wireless device, the first report, selecting, for the first wireless device, among the one or more secondary cell candidate, instructing the first wireless device to attach to the first secondary cell candidate, detecting that the first wireless device has failed the first series of random access attempts to connect to the first secondary cell candidate, and configuring the first wireless device, are part of, or based on, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) procedure.” ([para 0068]: “In some examples, the anchor cell 205 may transmit a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration measurement requesting a measurement report from the UE 115-a.”)
Claims 13-16, 18-20 and 22 are substantially similar to claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, with the differences amounting to that claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, are directed towards a method while claims 13-16, 18-20 and 22 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is disclosed by Hui in paragraph 6. Thus, claims 13-16, 18-20 and 22 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-4, 6-8, 10.
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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412