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 01/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 , 5-18 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims; they are moot based on the new ground of rejection for claims 1-10.
Regarding independent claims 11 and 16, the applicant has not made any argument addressing these claims; therefore, the references cited have not changed.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (US 20220015175 A1) hereinafter Wu in view of Wang et al. (US 20230156540 A1) hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1,
Wu teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (terminal device [0208]-[0220]; Fig. 7), comprising: a at least one processor (processor [0208]-[0220]; Fig. 7) coupled with at least one memory (memory coupled to processor [0208]-[0220]; Fig. 7), wherein the processor is configured to: determine first LBT information and first handover failure (HOF) information when a HOF occurs (determine cell related information when HOF occurs [0037]-[0045]; Fig. 1); and transmit the first LBT information and the first HOF information to a serving node of the UE (reporting failure information to target serving cell [0102]-[0104] and [0119]-[0123]; Fig. 1).
Wu does not explicitly teach perform a first listen before talk (LBT) procedure before transmitting an access message for a handover procedure, determine first LBT information, and transmit the first LBT information to a serving node of the UE.
Wang teaches perform a first listen before talk (LBT) procedure before transmitting an access message for a handover procedure (performing LBT on a target cell [0122]), determine first LBT information (reporting information to the gNB [0177]-[0178]), and transmit the first LBT information to a serving node of the UE (reporting information to the gNB [0177]-[0178]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Wang to the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances unlicensed channel access (Wang [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 2,
Wu and Wang teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: store the first HOF information if a first measurement result associated with a target cell when a first timer expires is higher than a first predefined value (determining HOF when a first count is greater than a threshold value [0064]. A person having ordinary level of skill in the art would find it obvious to define a parameter such that the comparison is flipped), and/or a second measurement result associated with a source cell when the first timer expires is higher than a second predefined value; and not store the first HOF information if the first measurement result is lower than the first predefined value (determining HOF when a first count is greater than a threshold value [0064]), and/or the second measurement result is lower than the second predefined value.
Regarding claim 3,
Wu and Wang teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Wu does not explicitly teach a cause for the HOF; a total number of a first type of LBT failure indicated by a first indication when a first timer is running; a total number of uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWP) in the target cell associated with a LBT failure detection and recovery procedure when the first timer is running; a second indication; a time point of when the second indication is triggered; a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP; a maximum value of a second timer associated with a second type of LBT failure for each BWP; one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions for each BWP; a first time period in the UE for the LBT failure detection and recovery procedure in each BWP of the target cell; a second time period from a time point when the handover procedure is initialized to a time point when the second indication is received; a third time period from a time point when the second indication is received to a time point when the handover procedure fails; a third measurement result associated with the target cell when a second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the target cell; a fourth measurement result associated with a target cell when a third type of LBT failure occurs; a fifth measurement result associated with a source cell when the second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the source cell; andor a sixth measurement result associated with the source cell when the third type of LBT failure occurs.
Wang teaches a cause for the HOF (failure reason [0176]-[0178]); a total number of a first type of LBT failure indicated by a first indication when a first timer is running; a total number of uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWP) in the target cell associated with a LBT failure detection and recovery procedure when the first timer is running; a second indication; a time point of when the second indication is triggered; a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP; a maximum value of a second timer associated with a second type of LBT failure for each BWP; one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions for each BWP; a first time period in the UE for the LBT failure detection and recovery procedure in each BWP of the target cell; a second time period from a time point when the handover procedure is initialized to a time point when the second indication is received; a third time period from a time point when the second indication is received to a time point when the handover procedure fails; a third measurement result associated with the target cell when a second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the target cell; a fourth measurement result associated with a target cell when a third type of LBT failure occurs; a fifth measurement result associated with a source cell when the second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the source cell; andor a sixth measurement result associated with the source cell when the third type of LBT failure occurs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Wang to the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances unlicensed channel access (Wang [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 4,
Wu and Wang teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Wu does not explicitly the first LBT information and the first HOF information are transmitted in a same message or in different messages.
Wang teaches the first LBT information and the first HOF information are transmitted in a same message or in different messages (handover failure and LBT failure information[0176]-[0178]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Wang to the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances unlicensed channel access (Wang [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 5,
Wu and Wang teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches optimize an LBT configuration (failure causing configuration information adjustment [0150]-[0151]).
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (US 20220015175 A1) hereinafter Wu in view of Teyeb et al. (US 2023/0262546 A1) hereinafter Teyeb.
Regarding claim 6,
Wu teaches a source node for wireless communication (network side device [0221]-[0226]; Fig. 8), comprising: a processor at least one memory; and a transceiver coupled to the processor (memory and a transceiver [0221]-[0226]; elements 603 and 601 of Fig. 8), wherein the processor is at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the source node to: receive first listen before talk (LBT) information and first handover failure (HOF) information from a user equipment (UE) or from a serving node (reporting failure information to target serving cell [0102]-[0104] and [0119]-[0123]; Fig. 1).
Wu does not explicitly teach receive second LBT information from a target node and second HOF information from the serving node.
Teyeb teaches receive second LBT information from a target node (first network node being different from a source node, forwarding the RLF to the target node. The RLF report contains an indication of handover failure [0070] and [0208]) and second HOF information from the serving node (forwarding RLF from a first node to a source node. The RLF report in a varRLF [0070] and [0208]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Teyeb to the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances failure reporting in dual-connectivity scenarios (Teyeb [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 9,
Wu and Teyeb teach all the features of claim 6, as outlined above.
Wu does not explicitly teach a cause for the HOF; a total number of a first type of LBT failure indicated by a first indication when a first timer is running; a total number of uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWP) in the target cell associated with a LBT failure detection and recovery procedure when the first timer is running; a second indication; a time point of when the second indication is triggered; a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP; a maximum value of a second timer associated with a second type of LBT failure for each BWP; one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions for each BWP; a first time period in the UE for the LBT failure detection and recovery procedure in each BWP of the target cell; a second time period from a time point when the handover procedure is initialized to a time point when the second indication is received; a third time period from a time point when the second indication is received to a time point when the handover procedure fails; a third measurement result associated with the target cell when a second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the target cell; a fourth measurement result associated with a target cell when a third type of LBT failure occurs; a fifth measurement result associated with a source cell when the second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the source cell; or a sixth measurement result associated with the source cell when the third type of LBT failure occurs.
Teyeb teaches a cause for the HOF (indication of handover failure [0070]); a total number of a first type of LBT failure indicated by a first indication when a first timer is running; a total number of uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWP) in the target cell associated with a LBT failure detection and recovery procedure when the first timer is running; a second indication; a time point of when the second indication is triggered; a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP; a maximum value of a second timer associated with a second type of LBT failure for each BWP; one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions for each BWP; a first time period in the UE for the LBT failure detection and recovery procedure in each BWP of the target cell; a second time period from a time point when the handover procedure is initialized to a time point when the second indication is received; a third time period from a time point when the second indication is received to a time point when the handover procedure fails; a third measurement result associated with the target cell when a second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the target cell; a fourth measurement result associated with a target cell when a third type of LBT failure occurs; a fifth measurement result associated with a source cell when the second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the source cell; or a sixth measurement result associated with the source cell when the third type of LBT failure occurs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Teyeb to the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances failure reporting in dual-connectivity scenarios (Teyeb [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 10,
Wu and Teyeb teach all the features of claim 6, as outlined above.
Wu does not explicitly teach a cause for the HOF; a total number of a first type of LBT failure indicated by a first indication when a first timer is running; a total number of uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWP) in the target cell associated with a LBT failure detection and recovery procedure when the first timer is running; a second indication; a time point of when the second indication is triggered; a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP; a maximum value of a second timer associated with a second type of LBT failure for each BWP; one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions for each BWP; a first time period in the UE for the LBT failure detection and recovery procedure in each BWP of the target cell; a second time period from a time point when the handover procedure is initialized to a time point when the second indication is received; a third time period from a time point when the second indication is received to a time point when the handover procedure fails; a third measurement result associated with the target cell when a second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the target cell; a fourth measurement result associated with a target cell when a third type of LBT failure occurs; a fifth measurement result associated with a source cell when the second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the source cell; or a sixth measurement result associated with the source cell when the third type of LBT failure occurs.
Teyeb teaches a cause for the HOF (indication of handover failure [0070]); a total number of a first type of LBT failure indicated by a first indication when a first timer is running; a total number of uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWP) in the target cell associated with a LBT failure detection and recovery procedure when the first timer is running; a second indication; a time point of when the second indication is triggered; a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP; a maximum value of a second timer associated with a second type of LBT failure for each BWP; one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions for each BWP; a first time period in the UE for the LBT failure detection and recovery procedure in each BWP of the target cell; a second time period from a time point when the handover procedure is initialized to a time point when the second indication is received; a third time period from a time point when the second indication is received to a time point when the handover procedure fails; a third measurement result associated with the target cell when a second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the target cell; a fourth measurement result associated with a target cell when a third type of LBT failure occurs; a fifth measurement result associated with a source cell when the second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the source cell; or a sixth measurement result associated with the source cell when the third type of LBT failure occurs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Teyeb to the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances failure reporting in dual-connectivity scenarios (Teyeb [0002]-[0004]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Teyeb in view of Ramachandra et al. (US 20240172062 A1) hereinafter Ramachandra.
Regarding claim 7,
Wu and Teyeb teach all the features of claim 6, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches wherein the failure type is an inappropriate mobility configuration /or an inappropriate LBT configuration (failure causing configuration information adjustment [0150]-[0151]).
Wu and Teyeb do not explicitly teach the processor is further configured to: determine a failure type based on the first LBT information and/or the first HOF information, or determine a failure type based on the second LBT information and/or the second HOF information.
Ramachandra teaches the processor is further configured to: determine a failure type based on the first LBT information and the first HOF information (determining failure type being an inter-RAT handover failure based on HOF information [0020]-[0020]), or determine a failure type based on the second LBT information and the second HOF information.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Ramachandra to the teachings of Wu and Teyeb. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances reporting of failed inter-RAT mobility (Ramachandra [0001]).
Regarding claim 8,
Wu and Teyeb and Ramachandra teach all the features of claim 7, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches optimization of an LBT configuration when the failure type is inappropriate LBT configuration (failure causing configuration information adjustment [0150]-[0151]).
Wu does not explicitly teach transmitting a first message to the target node.
Teyeb teaches transmitting a first message to the target node (forwarding failure information to target node [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Teyeb to the teachings of Wu and Ramachandra. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances failure reporting in dual-connectivity scenarios (Teyeb [0002]-[0004]).
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Shan et al. (CN 106792779) hereinafter Shan.
Regarding claim 11,
Wu teaches a target node comprising: a processor (network-side node with a processor [0221]-[0226]; Fig. 8 ); and a transceiver coupled to the processor (and a transceiver coupled to the processor [0221]-[0226]; Fig. 8).
Wu does not explicitly teach a method performed by a target node, and determining second listen before talk (LBT) information when a second LBT procedure fails; transmitting the second LBT information to a source node.
Shan teaches a method performed by a target node (method implemented by a target base station [11]-[12]), determining second listen before tak (LBT) information when the second LBT procedure fails (determining information when LBT fails [11]-[12]); transmitting the second LBT information to a source node (sending LBT information to macro base station [11]-[12]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Shan to the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances mobility procedures in un-licensed band (Shan [0001]).
Regarding claim 12,
Wu and Shan teach all the features of claim 11, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches the processor is further configured to optimize an LBT configuration (failure causing configuration information adjustment [0150]-[0151]).
Regarding claim 13,
Wu and Shan teach all the features of claim 11, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches the processor is further configured to optimize an LBT configuration (failure causing configuration information adjustment [0150]-[0151]), when a quality is higher than a threshold when the second LBT procedure fails (The failure type indication information may include LBT failure indication information, and the channel measurement information is specifically channel busy related measurement information [0149]-[0152]).
Regarding claim 15,
Wu and Shan teach all the features of claim 11, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches … or the second LBT information includes at least one of the following: a cause for the HOF (LBT failure indication indicating failure type for cell connection [0123]); a total number of a first type of LBT failure indicated by a first indication when a first timer is running; a total number of uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWP) in the target cell associated with a LBT failure detection and recovery procedure when the first timer is running; a second indication; a time point of when the second indication is triggered; a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP; a maximum value of a second timer associated with a second type of LBT failure for each BWP; one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions for each BWP; a first time period in the UE for the LBT failure detection and recovery procedure in each BWP of the target cell; a second time period from a time point when the handover procedure is initialized to a time point when the second indication is received; a third time period from a time point when the second indication is received to a time point when the handover procedure fails; a third measurement result associated with the target cell when a second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the target cell; a fourth measurement result associated with a target cell when a third type of LBT failure occurs; a fifth measurement result associated with a source cell when the second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the source cell; and a sixth measurement result associated with the source cell when the third type of LBT failure occurs.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Shan in view of Ozturk et al. (US 20210321314 A1) hereinafter Ozturk.
Regarding claim 14,
Wu and Shan teach all the features of claim 11, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches the processor is further configured to optimize an LBT configuration (failure causing configuration information adjustment [0150]-[0151]).
Wu and Shan do not explicitly teach receiving a first message for optimizing configuration from the source node.
Ozturk receiving a first message for optimizing configuration from the source node (status transfer message including LBT configuration information [0100]; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Ozturk to the teachings of Wu and Shan. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it enhances handling LBT failures during RRC procedures (Ozturk [0002]).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lin et al. (US 20210051556 A1) hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 16,
Wu teaches a processor for wireless communication (terminal [0208]-[0220]; Fig. 7), comprising: at least one memory (memory [0208]-[0220]; Fig. 7); and a controller coupled with the at least one memory (processor coupled to memory [0208]-[0220]; Fig. 7) and configured to cause the processor to: perform a first listen before talk (LBT) procedure (performing LBT [0096]); determine first LBT information and/or first handover failure (HOF) information when a HOF occurs (determine cell related information when HOF occurs [0037]-[0045]; Fig. 1); and transmit the first LBT information and/or the first HOF information to a serving node of the UE ((reporting failure information to serving cell [0102]-[0104] and [0119]-[0123]; Fig. 1).
Wu does not explicitly teach performing LBT before transmitting an access message for a handover procedure.
Lin teaches performing LBT before transmitting an access message for a handover procedure ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Lin to the teachings of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would avoid unreachable status between the UE and the network node due to channel occupation (Lin [0007]).
Regarding claim 17,
Wu and Lin teach all the features of claim 16, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches store the first HOF information if a first measurement result associated with a target cell when a first timer expires is higher than a first predefined value (determining HOF when a first count is greater than a threshold value [0064]. A person having ordinary level of skill in the art would find it obvious to define a parameter such that the comparison is flipped), and/or a second measurement result associated with a source cell when the first timer expires is higher than a second predefined value; and not store the first HOF information if the first measurement result is lower than the first predefined value (determining HOF when a first count is greater than a threshold value [0064]), and/or the second measurement result is lower than the second predefined value.
Regarding claim 18,
Wu and Lin teach all the features of claim 16, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches the first LBT information includes at least one of the following: a cause for the HOF (LBT failure indication indicating failure type for cell connection [0123]); a total number of a first type of LBT failure indicated by a first indication when a first timer is running; a total number of uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWP) in the target cell associated with a LBT failure detection and recovery procedure when the first timer is running; a second indication; a time point of when the second indication is triggered; a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP; a maximum value of a second timer associated with a second type of LBT failure for each BWP; one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions for each BWP; a first time period in the UE for the LBT failure detection and recovery procedure in each BWP of the target cell; a second time period from a time point when the handover procedure is initialized to a time point when the second indication is received; a third time period from a time point when the second indication is received to a time point when the handover procedure fails; a third measurement result associated with the target cell when a second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the target cell; a fourth measurement result associated with a target cell when a third type of LBT failure occurs; a fifth measurement result associated with a source cell when the second type of LBT failure occurs in a BWP in the source cell; and a sixth measurement result associated with the source cell when the third type of LBT failure occurs.
Regarding claim 19,
Wu and Lin teach all the features of claim 16, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches the first LBT information and the first HOF information are transmitted in a same message or in different messages (LBT failure indication indicating failure type for cell connection to a target cell in the same report [0123]).
Regarding claim 20,
Wu and Lin teach all the features of claim 16, as outlined above.
Wu further teaches the processor is further configured to: optimize an LBT configuration (failure causing configuration information adjustment [0150]-[0151]).
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 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