DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 08/01/2023, wherein:
Claim 1, 13, and 15-32 are pending.
Claim 1, 13, and 15 are amended.
Claim 2-12 are cancelled.
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.
Claim 1, 13, 15-16, 18, 21-23, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Awada et al. (WO2018077416A1).
Regarding claim 1, Awada discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 3), the UE comprising:
receiving, from a first serving base station (BS), when the UE is connected to a wireless network via the first serving BS, a coverage restoring information that is associated with a next serving BS and that is for reconnecting the UE to the wireless network via the next serving BS (Fig. 3 step 320 and ¶0052 – “At 320, the source cell A sends the system information (SI) for reconnection candidate cell C to user device 132. This SI for reconnection candidate cell may be used by user device 132 to more quickly re-establish a cell connection to the reconnection candidate cell C in the event that a RLF occurs for the user device 132”); and
reconnecting, based on the coverage restoring information as received before an interruption in the coverage of the wireless network, to the wireless network via the next serving BS following the interruption in the coverage of the wireless network (Fig. 3 step 322 and 0052 – “The RLF may occur at various times or points. For example, at 322, before a handover command is received or even before a measurement event associated with a handover is even measured, the user device 132 may detect a RLF and then reestablish a connection to reconnection candidate cell C based on the previously received SI for cell C. For example, reconnection candidate cell C may be cell B (C=B in one example case)”).
Regarding claim 13, Awada discloses a first serving base station (BS) for wireless communication (Fig. 3 – source cell / BS A), comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first serving BS to (Fig. 3 discloses source cell/base station A performing procedure to providing reconnection information to user device, which indicates that the base station comprising processor and memory component for executing its function):
transmit, to one or both of a next serving BS and a core network entity, a first request for a first coverage restoring information associated with the next serving BS (Fig. 3 step 316 and ¶0051 – “For example, at 316, the source cell A may send a H/O request to reconnection candidate cell C, indicating only a request for SI of cell C (thus, not really a H/O request, but only a request for SI of cell C)”);
receive the first coverage restoring information associated with the next serving BS (Fig. 3 step 318 and ¶0051 – “At 31 8, the source cell A may receive from reconnection candidate cell C the SI of cell C”); and
transmit a second coverage restoring information to a user equipment (UE) based on the first coverage restoring information when the UE is connected to a wireless network via the first serving BS (Fig. 3 step 320 and ¶0052 – “At 320, the source cell A sends the system information (SI) for reconnection candidate cell C to user device 132. This SI for reconnection candidate cell may be used by user device 132 to more quickly re-establish a cell connection to the reconnection candidate cell C in the event that a RLF occurs for the user device 132”), the second coverage restoring information being associated with the next serving BS for reconnecting the UE to the wireless network via the next serving BS following an interruption in a coverage of the wireless network (Fig. 3 step 322 and 0052 – “The RLF may occur at various times or points. For example, at 322, before a handover command is received or even before a measurement event associated with a handover is even measured, the user device 132 may detect a RLF and then reestablish a connection to reconnection candidate cell C based on the previously received SI for cell C. For example, reconnection candidate cell C may be cell B (C=B in one example case)”).
Regarding claim 15, the scope and content of the claim recites a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication for performing the method of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1. Awada further discloses details regarding the components of the UE: at least one memory (Fig. 9 – Memory 906); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Fig. 9 – processor 904 coupled with memory 906)
Regarding claim 16, Awada discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: transmit, to the first serving BS, a first coverage interruption estimation associated with one or both of the UE or the first serving BS (Fig. 3 step 314/323 and ¶0051 – “At 314, the user device 132 measures one or more signals, and determines that a measurement event has occurred or expired with respect to the offset for the system information. Therefore, at 314, the user device sends a SI triggering measurement report (e.g., for target cell B) to source cell A. As noted in 31 0, the source cell A may already have the PCI or identity of a reconnection candidate cell C associated with source cell A, target cell B and/or a cell border, for example. The source cell A may obtain, or may already have, the system information (SI) for the reconnection candidate cell C for the source cell A/target cell B. For example, at 316, the source cell A may send a H/O request to reconnection candidate cell C, indicating only a request for SI of cell C (thus, not really a H/O request, but only a request for SI of cell C). At 31 8, the source cell A may receive from reconnection candidate cell C the SI of cell C”; Fig. 4 step 414 and ¶0056).
Regarding claim 18, Awada discloses the UE of claim 16, wherein the first coverage interruption estimation is based on at least one of: a location of the UE; a velocity of the UE; a route of the UE; information of the first serving BS; information of a second serving BS (Fig. 3 step 314/323, ¶0051, Fig. 4 step 414 and ¶0056 disclose transmitting SI or cell change measurement report which is the interruption estimation based on first and second serving BS); and a second coverage interruption estimation received from the first serving BS.
Regarding claim 20, Awada discloses the UE of claim 16, wherein transmission of the first coverage interruption estimation to the first serving BS is triggered based on at least one of multiple conditions that include: a first request for the first coverage interruption estimation is received from the first serving BS (Fig. 3 step 312 and ¶0050); a second coverage interruption estimation is received from the first serving BS; a pre-determined time or a pre-determined periodicity to transmit the first coverage interruption estimation to the first serving BS arrives; the UE is at a pre-determined location; a velocity of the UE is above a pre-determined threshold; and a signal strength of the first serving BS as received by the UE is below a pre- determined threshold.
Regarding claim 21, Awada discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the coverage restoring information includes at least one of: an identity of the next serving BS (Fig. 3 step 320-322 and ¶0052); an identity of a next serving cell associated with the next serving BS (Fig. 3 step 320-322 and ¶0052); a location where a coverage of the first serving BS is interrupted; a location where a coverage of the next serving BS is available; a time when a coverage of the first serving BS is interrupted; a time when a coverage of the next serving BS will be available; an indication of retaining current configuration of the UE if the UE is no longer in an RRCCONNECTED state with the wireless network; and information to access the next serving BS.
Regarding claim 22, Awada discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the coverage restoring information is received from the first serving BS via at least one of: RRC reconfiguration signalling; RRC release signalling; RRC release with suspend signalling; and system information broadcasting (Fig. 3 step 320-322 and ¶0052 disclose receiving system information of reconnection candidate cell C).
Regarding claim 23, Awada discloses the UE of Claim 15, wherein reconnecting the UE to the wireless network via the next serving BS is triggered based on at least one of multiple conditions that include: a predetermined time to reconnect the UE to the wireless network arrives; the UE is at a location as specified in the coverage restoring information; the UE receives information from the next serving BS; the UE selects the next serving BS (Fig. 3 step 314-320-322 and ¶0051-0052 disclose the reconnection is triggered by UE selecting candidate for SI triggering report); and the UE is paged by the next serving BS.
Regarding claim 27, the scope and content of the claim recites a processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory (Awada - Fig. 3 discloses source cell/base station A performing procedure to providing reconnection information to user device, which indicates that the base station comprising processor and memory component for executing its function)and configured to cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, Awada discloses the processor of claim 27, wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to: transmit, to the first serving BS, a first coverage interruption estimation associated with one or both of the UE or the first serving BS. (Fig. 3 step 314/323 and ¶0051 – “At 314, the user device 132 measures one or more signals, and determines that a measurement event has occurred or expired with respect to the offset for the system information. Therefore, at 314, the user device sends a SI triggering measurement report (e.g., for target cell B) to source cell A. As noted in 31 0, the source cell A may already have the PCI or identity of a reconnection candidate cell C associated with source cell A, target cell B and/or a cell border, for example. The source cell A may obtain, or may already have, the system information (SI) for the reconnection candidate cell C for the source cell A/target cell B. For example, at 316, the source cell A may send a H/O request to reconnection candidate cell C, indicating only a request for SI of cell C (thus, not really a H/O request, but only a request for SI of cell C). At 31 8, the source cell A may receive from reconnection candidate cell C the SI of cell C”; Fig. 4 step 414 and ¶0056).
Regarding claim 29, Awada discloses the processor of claim 27, wherein the coverage restoring information includes at least one of: an identity of the next serving BS (Fig. 3 step 320-322 and ¶0052); an identity of a next serving cell associated with the next serving BS (Fig. 3 step 320-322 and ¶0052); a location where a coverage of the first serving BS is interrupted; a location where a coverage of the next serving BS is available; a time when a coverage of the first serving BS is interrupted; a time when a coverage of the next serving BS will be available; an indication of retaining current configuration of the UE if the UE is no longer in an RRCCONNECTED state with the wireless network; and information to access the next serving BS.
Regarding claim 30, Awada discloses the processor of claim 27, wherein the coverage restoring information is received from the first serving BS via at least one of: RRC reconfiguration signaling; RRC release signaling; RRC release with suspend signaling; and system information broadcasting (Fig. 3 step 320-322 and ¶0052 disclose receiving system information of reconnection candidate cell C).
Regarding claim 31, Awada discloses the processor of Claim 27, wherein reconnecting the UE to the wireless network via the next serving BS is triggered based on at least one of multiple conditions that include: a predetermined time to reconnect the UE to the wireless network arrives; the UE is at a location as specified in the coverage restoring information; the UE receives information from the next serving BS; (Fig. 3 step 314-320-322 and ¶0051-0052 disclose the reconnection is triggered by UE selecting candidate for SI triggering report); and the UE is paged by the next serving BS.
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada et al. (WO2018077416A1) in view of De Benedittis et al. (US 20140335861 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Awada discloses the UE of claim 16, however, silent on further details of claim 17.
De Benedittis discloses wherein the first coverage interruption estimation includes at least one of: an identity of a second serving BS (¶0017 – “Based on a measurement report from a UE, the serving eNB is able to determine that a handover is needed, to identify the physical cell identifier and the carrier frequency of the candidate target eNB cells to which the UE can be handed over, to prepare those candidate target cells to receive the UE, and to indicate to the UE the selected target cell to which it should hand over”); an identity of a second serving cell associated with the second serving BS; a location where a coverage of the first serving BS is interrupted; a location where a coverage of the second serving BS is available; a time when a coverage of the first serving BS is interrupted; and a time when a coverage of the second serving BS will be available.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Awada to incorporate cell identifier of target cell from De Benedittis because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to enable UE to provide details measurement report.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada et al. (WO2018077416A1) in view of Jactat et al. (US 20130281063 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Awada discloses the UE of claim 16, however, silent on further details of claim 19.
Jactat discloses wherein the first coverage interruption estimation is transmitted to the first serving BS via at least one of: RRC signalling for measurement report; and a minimized drive test (MDT) report (¶0006, Fig. 6 step S4-1; Fig. 8 step S3-S4 and ¶0133-0135 disclose measurement report using RRC signal which is reporting through serving BS as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Awada to incorporate MDT measurement and providing measurement report using RRC signaling from Jactat because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known signaling protocol.
Claim 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada et al. (WO2018077416A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20150358863 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Awada discloses the UE of claim 15, however, silent on further details of claim 25.
Yamamoto discloses wherein the UE reconnects with the wireless network via the next serving BS without needing a random access procedure (¶0118 – “In the communications system according to the present invention, the PCell (the original PCell) notifies the SCell (the original SCell) of its own base station number (PCI) as a candidate for a new SCell during handover processing between the PCell and the SCell for example. Following completion of handover processing, the original PCell immediately reconnects to the mobile terminal device 21-1 as the SCell. Furthermore, in the reconnection processing with the original PCell, the mobile terminal device 21-1 executes reconnection with the original PCell as the SCell without performing a random access (Random access) procedure (procedure) with the original PCell for example”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Awada to incorporate reconnection without performing random access procedure from Yamamoto because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to reduce connection time.
Regarding claim 26, Awada discloses the UE of claim 15, however, silent on further details of claim 26.
Yamamoto discloses wherein the first serving BS and the next serving BS are a same BS (¶0118 discloses previous Pcell being reconnected as Scell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Awada to incorporate reconnection without performing random access procedure from Yamamoto because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to reduce connection time and maintain dual connectivity.
Claim 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada et al. (WO2018077416A1) in view of Ingale et al. (US 20230145867 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Awada discloses the UE of claim 15, however, silent on further details of claim 24.
Ingale discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit a request to reconnect with the wireless network via at least one of: RRC reconfiguration complete signalling; RRC re-establishment signalling (Fig. 3a and ¶0085 – “the UE (100) will send re-establishment message to the new cell and the UE (100) has selected to attempt for RLF recovery if the timer T311 is still running. When the network (i.e., RAN node) receives the RRC re-establishment request message from the UE (100), the RAT may attempt to fetch the UE context from the cell on which the UE (100) declared RLF. The UE (100) may send the re-establishment UE identity along with RRC re-establishment request message to the network”); and RRC resume signaling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Awada to incorporate RLF recovery signalling from Ingale because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve user experience by providing alternative reconnection mechanism to available network.
Regarding claim 32, Awada discloses the processor of claim 27, however, silent on further details of claim 32.
Ingale discloses wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to transmit a request to reconnect with the wireless network via at least one of: RRC reconfiguration complete signalling; RRC re-establishment signalling (Fig. 3a and ¶0085 – “the UE (100) will send re-establishment message to the new cell and the UE (100) has selected to attempt for RLF recovery if the timer T311 is still running. When the network (i.e., RAN node) receives the RRC re-establishment request message from the UE (100), the RAT may attempt to fetch the UE context from the cell on which the UE (100) declared RLF. The UE (100) may send the re-establishment UE identity along with RRC re-establishment request message to the network”); and RRC resume signalling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Awada to incorporate RLF recovery signalling from Ingale because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve user experience by providing alternative reconnection mechanism to available network.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. 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).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights