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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 35, 38, 42, 45, 50 and 53 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims; they are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 35-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20150126205 A1) hereinafter Kim in view of Chang et al. (US 20130189973 A1) hereinafter Chang, and in further view of Xia et al. (US 20140148151 A1) hereinafter Xia.
Regarding claim 35,
Kim teaches a method for a user equipment (UE) to report link failures in a wireless network (method for reporting at a terminal [0010]; Figs. 4-6), the method comprising: after a connection failure in a first public land mobile network (PLMN) (failing in RRC connection establishment in a selected PLMN [0052]-[0053]) connecting to a first cell in the wireless network (connecting to eNB [0052]-[0053]); and sending, to a radio network node (RNN) in the wireless network, a failure report including an indication of whether the first cell is associated with the first PLMN (transmitting measurement information associated with the failure to the eNB including an indication that the eNB is associated with the selected PLMN [0066] and [0076]-[0079]; Fig. 4).
Kim does not explicitly teach re-connecting after a link failure and after a failed connection reestablishment; the indication is based on the following: inclusion of an identifier of the first cell in the failure report, when the first cell is associated with at least one PLMN identifier that is associated with a cell in which the link failure occurred; and exclusion of the identifier of the first cell from the failure report, when the first cell is not associated with any PLMN identifiers that are associated with the cell in which the link failure occurred.
Chang teaches re-connecting after a link failure and after a failed connection reestablishment (failure information for two connection failures [0047]; Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chang to the teachings of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve coverage (Chang [0007]).
Kim and Chang do not explicitly teach the indication is based on the following: inclusion of an identifier of the first cell in the failure report, when the first cell is associated with at least one PLMN identifier that is associated with a cell in which the link failure occurred; and exclusion of the identifier of the first cell from the failure report, when the first cell is not associated with any PLMN identifiers that are associated with the cell in which the link failure occurred.
Xia teaches the indication is based on the following: inclusion of an identifier of the first cell in the failure report, when the first cell is associated with at least one PLMN identifier that is associated with a cell in which the link failure occurred (optionally including target cell ID in the RLF report, wherein a subscription condition is satisfied, where the subscription condition is based on area scope attribute [0068] and [0116]); and exclusion of the identifier of the first cell from the failure report, when the first cell is not associated with any PLMN identifiers that are associated with the cell in which the link failure occurred (optionally excluding target cell ID in the RLF report, wherein a subscription condition is not satisfied, where the subscription condition is based on area scope attribute [0068] and [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Xia to the teachings of Kim and Chang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance how the report is obtained (Xia [0003]).
Regarding claim 36,
Kim and Chang and Xia teach all the features of claim 35, as outlined above.
Kim further teaches in response to the link failure, storing a list of PLMN identifiers associated with a cell in which the link failure occurred, including an identifier of the first PLMN (logging selected PLMN in response to link failure [0066]).
Regarding claim 37,
Kim and Chang and Xia teach all the features of claim 36, as outlined above.
Kim further teaches connecting to the first cell in the wireless network comprises receiving an RRCSetup message via the first cell (receiving RRCConnectionSetup from eNB [0076]-[0077]; element 435 of Fig. 4); and the method further comprises determining whether the first cell is associated with any of the PLMN identifiers included in the list (determining whether current RPLMN matches a selected/logged PLMN [0076]-[0077]; element 440 of Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 38,
Kim and Chang and Xia teach all the features of claim 37, as outlined above, where Chang teaches the connection failure being a link failure and a link re-establishment failure (failure information for two connection failures [0047]; Figs. 4 and 5) and Xia teaches the identifier of the first cell being optional (optional target cell ID [0068] and [0116]).
Kim further teaches the identifier is included when the first cell is associated with at least one PLMN identifier included in the list and the RRCSetup message is an initial RRCSetup message received by the UE after the connection failure (cell ID when the current RPLMN matches the selected/logged PLMN [0066]-[0078]; Fig. 4); and the identifier is excluded when the first cell is not associated with any of the PLMN identifiers included in the list or the RRCSetup message is not an initial RRCSetup message received by the UE after the connection failure (not indicating cell ID when current PLMN mismatches the logged/selected PLMN; [0066]-[0078]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 39,
Kim and Chang and Xia teach all the features of claim 37, as outlined above.
Kim further teaches when the first cell is associated with at least one PLMN identifier included in the list and the RRCSetup message is an initial RRCSetup message received by the UE after connection failure (when the eNB is associated with a PLMN included in the logged PLMN list [0066]-[0078]; Fig. 4); and no further indication of time elapsed since the link failure, when the first cell is not associated with any of the PLMN identifiers included in the list or the RRCSetup message is not an initial RRCSetup message received by the UE after the connection failure (not including an indication of the time elapsed when the eNB is associated with a PLMN logged [0066]-[0078]; Fig. 4).
However, Kim further teaches measurement information including time information associated with link failure ([0006] and [0028]-[0033]). Kim does not explicitly teach that the time information is included in the failure report.
Chang teaches the failure report further comprise: a further indication of time elapsed since the link failure (including relative time information with RLF when RRCSetup is the initial message received [0073]-[0084] and [0086]-[0088]; Figs. 3 and 4); and no further indication of time elapsed since the link failure (not including relative time information [0073]-[0084] and [0086]-[0088]; Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chang to the teachings of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve coverage (Chang [0007]).
Regarding claim 40,
Kim and Chang and Xia teach all the features of claim 36, as outlined above.
Kim further teaches the RNN is part of at least one of the PLMNs identified in the list (transmitting measurement information associated with the failure to the eNB including an indication that the eNB is associated with the selected PLMN [0066] and [0076]-[0079]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 41,
Kim and Chang and Xia teach all the features of claim 36, as outlined above.
Kim does not explicitly teach one or more of the following applies: the link failure is a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure (HOF) declared by the UE in the first PLMN; the list of PLMN identifiers is included in the failure report; and the failure report is an RLF report.
Chang teaches one or more of the following applies: the link failure is a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure (HOF) declared by the UE in the first PLMN (type of failure [0070]); the list of PLMN identifiers is included in the failure report; and the failure report is an RLF report.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chang to the teachings of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve coverage (Chang [0007]).
Claims 42-48, “RNN method”, are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 35-41, “UE method”, respectively.
Claims 50-54, “UE apparatus”, are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 35-41, “remote UE method”, respectively, where Kim teaches the apparatus comprising communication interface circuitry and processing circuitry ([0090]-[0092]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 49,
Kim and Chang and Xia teach all the features of claim 42, as outlined above.
Kim further teaches an indication indicates that the first cell is associated/not associated with the first PLMN in which the UE's failed connection reestablishment occurred (transmitting measurement information associated with the failure to the eNB including an indication that the eNB is associated with the selected PLMN [0066] and [0076]-[0079]; Fig. 4);
Kim further teaches selectively performing mobility parameter tuning for the first cell based on the indication (not performing parameter tuning when current PLMN mismatches the logged/selected PLMN; [0066]-[0078]; Fig. 4), refraining from performing mobility parameter tuning for the first cell when the indication indicates that the first cell is not associated with the first PLMN in which the UE's failed connection reestablishment occurred (not performing parameter tuning when current PLMN mismatches the logged/selected PLMN; [0066]-[0078]; Fig. 4).
Chang also teaches performing mobility parameter tuning (MRO [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chang to the teachings of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve coverage (Chang [0007]).
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 ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465