Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts (page 2 of remarks):
a) Ericsson fails to disclose or teach "performing a DAPS fallback to the source cell... experiencing a radio link failure (RLF) while being connected to the source cell after the DAPS fallback; [and] storing second failure information associated with experiencing the RLF."
b) However, the Examiner very kindly directs applicant to ERICSSON where teaches, the UE falls back to the source node based on experiencing the failure and RLF in the source cell after DAPS fall back and before the UE transmits failure information message (page 2 and 3, scenario 1 and 2). Further, Examiner relies on Lenovo where teaches storing both failure related information associated with successive failures and associated with the RLF (page 40, second 5.6).
c) Applicant also asserts: claim 1 requires that the DAPS fallback is performed such that the UE is "being connected to the source cell after the DAPS fallback," and the RLF is experienced "after the DAPS fallback." And Ericsson fails to disclose the claimed state of experiencing an RLF "while being connected to the source cell after the DAPS fallback."
d) However, the Examiner very kindly directs applicant to scenario 2 which teaches RLF in the source cell after DAPS fall back. Thus ERICSSON teaches experiencing an RLF in the source cell (i.e. while being connected to the source cell) and after the DAPS fallback (emphasis added).
e) Applicant further asserts (page 3 of remarks): Ericsson does not disclose or teach a single sequence requiring performing a DAPS fallback followed by experiencing a radio link failure... after the DAPS fallback.
f) However, the Examiner very kindly point out to scenario 2 which covers RLF in the source cell after DAPS fall back. When RLF happens after DAPS fallback then that is the same as performing DAPS fallback followed by occurring RLF. Thus ERICSSON teaches in the single sequence the claim limitation.
g) Applicant's arguments with regards to dependent claims are based on the deficiency of the references to support the limitations of independent claims. The arguments are respectfully traversed for the same reason(s) as stated above for rejection of independent claims.
3. Therefore, the limitations of the claims are met and the rejection is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
A) Claims 1, 3-7, 10-16, 18, 20, 26, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERICSSON, "(TP for SON BL CR for TS38.300): DAPS handover SON aspects," 3GPP TSG-RAN3 #110-e, 3-206519, Online November 2-12, 2020, 6 pages hereinafter ERICSSON in view of LENOVO et al., "Summary of Offline Discussion on Mobility Enhancement Optimization,” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 111e, R3-211176, Online, January 26 - February 5, 2021, 44 pages hereinafter LENOVO
As per claim 1, ERICSSON teaches a method performed by a wireless device for reporting failure information in a self-organizing network (SON) (page 1, last paragraph, SON Enhancements for DAPS handover and reporting failure information of the source link from UE may be needed for DAPS handover), the method comprising:
receiving, from a source cell while being connected to the source cell, a handover command to attempt a handover from the source cell to a target cell, one or more bearers associated with the handover from the source cell to the target cell being configured with a dual active protocol stack ( DAPS) (page 2 and Fig.1, receiving from source node HO command to attempt handover from source node to target node, handover command with ‘daps-HO’/’dapsConfig’ per DRB);
experiencing a failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell (page 2, scenario 1, experiencing a DAPS handover failure); performing a DAPS fallback to the source cell based at least in part on experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell (page 2, scenario 1, the UE falls back to the source node based on experiencing the failure); experiencing a radio link failure, RLF, while being connected to the source cell after the DAPS fallback (page 3, scenario 2, RLF occurs in the source cell after DAPS fall back and before UE transmits Failure Information message).
However, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach storing first failure information associated with the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell; storing second failure information associated with experiencing the RLF; and transmitting the first failure information or the second failure information towards the SON.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches storing first failure information associated with the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell (page 40, section 5.6, storing both failure related information (i.e. first and second failure information) associated with successive failures associated with handover); storing second failure information associated with experiencing the RLF (page 40, section 5.6, storing both failure related information (i.e. first and second failure information) associated with successive failures associated with RLF); and transmitting the first failure information or the second failure information towards the SON (page 38, section 5.5 and page 40, section 5.6, reporting or transmitting both failure related information for SON enhancements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 3 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON teaches, deleting the first failure information based at least in part on experiencing the RLF while being connected to the source cell (page 3, scenario 2, when RLF occurs while being connected to the source cell then failure information will not be transmitted thus cancelling or deleting to send failure information).
As per claim 4 as applied to claim 3 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach logging that the first failure information was deleted.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches logging that the first failure information was deleted (pages 22-23, table Q13, logging that information was deleted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 5 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach wherein storing the first failure information includes storing the first failure information in a radio link failure (RLF) report or storing the second failure information includes storing the second failure information in the RLF report.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the first failure information includes storing the first failure information in a radio link failure (RLF) report or storing the second failure information includes storing the second failure information in the RLF report (page 40, section 5.6, storing both (i.e. first and second) failure related information in the RLF report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 6 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach
wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-since-fallback information indicating a time elapsed between experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell and experiencing the RLF while being connected to the source cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-since-fallback information indicating a time elapsed between experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell and experiencing the RLF while being connected to the source cell (page 36, section 5.4, storing both failure related information includes storing time elapsed since between occurring or experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell and RLF at the source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 7 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach
wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-conn-failure information indicating a time elapsed between receiving the handover command and experiencing the radio link failure while being connected to the source cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-conn-failure information indicating a time elapsed between receiving the handover command and experiencing the radio link failure while being connected to the source cell (page 36, section 5.4, storing both failure related information includes storing timeConnFailure IE indicating a time elapsed since last HO initialization until connection failure occurred).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 10 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach wherein storing the second failure information includes storing timing information indicating a time elapsed between receiving the handover command and experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the second failure information includes storing timing information indicating a time elapsed between receiving the handover command and experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell (page 36, section 5.4, storing both failure related information includes storing timing information indicating time elapsed since last HO initialization until connection failure occurred while attempting the HO from the source cell to the target cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 11 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach wherein storing the second failure information includes storing fallback timing information indicating a time elapsed between receiving the handover command and performing the DAPS fallback.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the second failure information includes storing fallback timing information indicating a time elapsed between receiving the handover command and performing the DAPS fallback (sections 4.2, 5.3 and section 5.4, storing both failure related information includes storing time related information (i.e. fallback timing information) indicating a time elapsed between receiving CHO command and performing the DAPS fallback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 12 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach wherein storing the second failure information includes storing radio-measurement information indicating available radio measurements associated with a serving cell, a target cell, or a neighboring cell during a time duration between performing the DAPS fallback and experiencing the RLF while being connected to the source cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the second failure information includes storing radio-measurement information indicating available radio measurements associated with a serving cell, a target cell, or a neighboring cell during a time duration between performing the DAPS fallback and experiencing the RLF while being connected to the source cell (sections 4.3 and 5.5, storing related measurement information associated with each cell (i.e. serving, target, neighboring cell) during a time between DASP handover and RLF occurrence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 13 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-since-last-unsuccessful-HO timing information indicating a time elapsed between receiving the handover command and experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-since-last-unsuccessful-HO timing information indicating a time elapsed between receiving the handover command and experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell (sections 4.1 and 4.2, storing both failure related information includes storing time related information such as unsuccessful CHO information indicating time elapsed between receiving CHO command and handover failure occurrence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 14 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-to-last-unsuccessful-HO timing information indicating a time elapsed between initiating the handover and experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-to-last-unsuccessful-HO timing information indicating a time elapsed between initiating the handover and experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell (sections 4.1 and 4.2, storing both failure related information includes storing time related information such as unsuccessful CHO information indicating time elapsed between handover execution or initiating handover and handover failure occurrence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 15, ERICSSON teaches a method performed by a base station in a self-organizing network (SON) (page 1, last paragraph, SON Enhancements for DAPS handover by a node (i.e. base station)), the method comprising: receiving first failure information or second failure information from a wireless device (page 2, scenario 1, receiving failure information (i.e. first failure information) from the UE/wireless device); determining whether the wireless device experienced a radio link failure (RLF) after performing a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) fallback (page 3, scenario 2, RLF in the source cell after DAPS fall back and before UE transmits Failure Information message).
However, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach optimizing a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters based at least in part on determining the wireless device experienced the RLF after performing the DAPS fallback.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches optimizing a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters based at least in part on determining the wireless device experienced the RLF after performing the DAPS fallback (page 21, table Q11 and page 32, table Q18, handover configuration optimization including information related to handover based on the UE experiencing RLF after DAPS fallback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 16 as applied to claim 15 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach determining whether the wireless device experienced the RLF before performing the DAPS fallback and within a predetermined time window from completing a handover from a first cell to a source cell; and optimizing a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters based at least in part on determining the wireless device experienced the RLF before performing the DAPS fallback and within the predetermined time window from completing the handover from the first cell to the source cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches determining whether the wireless device experienced the RLF before performing the DAPS fallback and within a predetermined time window from completing a handover from a first cell to a source cell (page 30, table Q17, determining the UE suffers or experience RLF before fallback within time window after handover); and optimizing a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters based at least in part on determining the wireless device experienced the RLF before performing the DAPS fallback and within the predetermined time window from completing the handover from the first cell to the source cell (page 21, table Q11, page 30, table Q17, and page 32, table Q18, handover configuration optimization including information related to handover based on the UE experiencing RLF before fallback and within time window after successful or completing the handover).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 18, ERICSSON teaches a wireless device configured to operate in a self-organizing network (SON) (page 1, last paragraph, UE is operating in a SON for DAPS handover), the wireless device comprising: processing circuitry; and memory coupled with the processing circuitry (page 1, UE with memory and processor), wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the wireless device to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a source cell while being connected to the source cell, a handover command to attempt a handover from the source cell to a target cell, one or more bearers associated with the handover from the source cell to the target cell being configured with a dual active protocol stack, DAPS (page 2 and Fig.1, receiving from source node HO command to attempt handover from source node to target node, handover command with ‘daps-HO’/’dapsConfig’ per DRB); experiencing a failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell (page 2, scenario 1, experiencing a DAPS handover failure); performing a DAPS fallback to the source cell based at least in part on experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell (page 2, scenario 1, the UE falls back to the source node based on experiencing the failure); experiencing a radio link failure, RLF, while being connected to the source cell (page 3, scenario 2, RLF in the source cell after DAPS fall back and before UE transmits Failure Information message).
However, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach storing first failure information associated with the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell; storing second failure information associated with experiencing the RLF; and transmitting the first failure information or the second failure information towards the SON.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches storing first failure information associated with the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell (page 40, section 5.6, storing both failure related information (i.e. first and second failure information) associated with successive failures associated with handover); storing second failure information associated with experiencing the RLF (page 40, section 5.6, storing both failure related information (i.e. first and second failure information) associated with successive failures associated with RLF); and transmitting the first failure information or the second failure information towards the SON (page 38, section 5.5 and page 40, section 5.6, reporting or transmitting both failure related information for SON enhancements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 20, ERICSSON teaches a base station (page 1, node (i.e. base station)) comprising: processing circuitry; and memory coupled with the processing circuitry (page 1, base station with memory and processor), wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the base station to perform operations comprising: receiving first failure information or second failure information from a wireless device (page 2, scenario 1, receiving failure information (i.e. first failure information) from the UE/wireless device); determining whether the wireless device experienced a radio link failure (RLF) after performing a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) fallback (page 3, scenario 2, RLF in the source cell after DAPS fall back and before UE transmits Failure Information message).
However, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach optimizing a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters based at least in part on determining the wireless device experienced the RLF after performing the DAPS fallback.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches optimizing a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters based at least in part on determining the wireless device experienced the RLF after performing the DAPS fallback (page 21, table Q11 and page 32, table Q18, handover configuration optimization including information related to handover based on the UE experiencing RLF after DAPS fallback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 26 as applied to claim 20 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach determining whether the wireless device experienced the RLF before performing the DAPS fallback and within a predetermined time window from completing a handover from a first cell to a source cell; and optimizing a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters based at least in part on determining the wireless device experienced the RLF before performing the DAPS fallback and within the predetermined time window from completing the handover from the first cell to the source cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches determining whether the wireless device experienced the RLF before performing the DAPS fallback and within a predetermined time window from completing a handover from a first cell to a source cell (page 30, table Q17, determining the UE suffers or experience RLF before fallback within time window after handover); and optimizing a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters based at least in part on determining the wireless device experienced the RLF before performing the DAPS fallback and within the predetermined time window from completing the handover from the first cell to the source cell (page 21, table Q11, page 30, table Q17, and page 32, table Q18, handover configuration optimization including information related to handover based on the UE experiencing RLF before fallback and within time window after successful or completing the handover).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 31 as applied to claim 18 above, ERICSSON teaches, deleting the first failure information based at least in part on experiencing the RLF while being connected to the source cell (page 3, scenario 2, when RLF occurs while being connected to the source cell then failure information will not be transmitted thus cancelling or deleting to send failure information).
As per claim 32 as applied to claim 31 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach logging that the first failure information was deleted.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches logging that the first failure information was deleted (pages 22-23, table Q13, logging that information was deleted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 33 as applied to claim 18 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach wherein storing the first failure information includes storing the first failure information in a radio link failure (RLF) report or storing the second failure information includes storing the second failure information in the RLF report.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the first failure information includes storing the first failure information in a radio link failure, RLF, report or storing the second failure information includes storing the second failure information in the RLF report (page 40, section 5.6, storing both (i.e. first and second) failure related information in the RLF report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
As per claim 34 as applied to claim 18 above, ERICSSON does not explicitly teach wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-since-fallback information indicating a time elapsed between experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell and experiencing the RLF while being connected to the source cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein storing the second failure information includes storing time-since-fallback information indicating a time elapsed between experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell and experiencing the RLF while being connected to the source cell (page 36, section 5.4, storing both failure related information includes storing time elapsed since between occurring or experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell and RLF at the source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Lenovo into ERICSSON invention in order to store and report all failure related information for SON enhancements for DAPS handover.
B) Claims 8, 17, and 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERICSSON in view of LENOVO and further in view of WANG (US 2023/0164648 A1).
As per claim 8 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON in view of Lenovo does not explicitly teach wherein storing the second failure information includes storing conn-time-failure information indicating a time elapsed between initiating the handover from the source cell to the target cell and experiencing the radio link failure while being connected to the source cell.
In the same field of endeavor, WANG teaches storing the second failure information includes storing conn-time-failure information indicating a time elapsed between initiating the handover from the source cell to the target cell and experiencing the radio link failure while being connected to the source cell (¶0227 and ¶0352, storing information related to link failure including storing information of the time length elapsed from handover initialization to occurrence of a first link failure (i.e. while being connected to the source cell)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of WANG into ERICSSON and Lenovo invention in order to provide a method for link failure reporting to meet the rapid growth of mobile data services and support new applications and deployments.
As per claim 17 as applied to claim 15 above, ERICSSON in view of Lenovo does not explicitly teach determining identity information of another base station associated with experiencing a failure while attempting a handover based at least in part on the first failure information or with experiencing a RLF based at least in part on the second failure information; and forwarding the first failure information or the second failure information to the other base station to enable the other base station to optimize a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, WANG teaches determining identity information of another base station associated with experiencing a failure while attempting a handover based at least in part on the first failure information or with experiencing a RLF based at least in part on the second failure information (¶0263 and ¶0269, determining identification information of a target cell associated with failure); and forwarding the first failure information or the second failure information to the other base station to enable the other base station to optimize a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters (¶0425-426, reporting by forwarding the link failure information to another base station to optimize a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of WANG into ERICSSON and Lenovo invention in order to provide a method for link failure reporting to meet the rapid growth of mobile data services and support new applications and deployments.
As per claim 35 as applied to claim 20 above, ERICSSON in view of Lenovo does not explicitly teach determine identity information of another base station associated with experiencing a failure while attempting a handover based at least in part on the first failure information or with experiencing a RLF based at least in part on the second failure information; and forward the first failure information or the second failure information to the other base station to enable the other base station to optimize a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, WANG teaches determine identity information of another base station associated with experiencing a failure while attempting a handover based at least in part on the first failure information or with experiencing a RLF based at least in part on the second failure information (¶0263 and ¶0269, determining identification information of a target cell associated with failure); and forward the first failure information or the second failure information to the other base station to enable the other base station to optimize a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters (¶0425-426, reporting by forwarding the link failure information to another base station to optimize a handover configuration including optimizing one or more handover parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of WANG into ERICSSON and Lenovo invention in order to provide a method for link failure reporting to meet the rapid growth of mobile data services and support new applications and deployments.
C) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERICSSON in view of LENOVO and further in view of QIU (US 2022/0191961 A1).
As per claim 9 as applied to claim 1 above, ERICSSON in view of Lenovo does not explicitly teach wherein storing the second failure information includes storing fallback-flag information indicating the experiencing of the RLF after performing the DAPS fallback, wherein the fallback-flag information may be used to determine whether time-conn-failure information or conn-time-failure represents a time elapsed between experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell, based at least in part on which the wireless device performed the DAPS fallback, and experiencing the RLF.
In the same field of endeavor, QIU teaches wherein storing the second failure information includes storing fallback-flag information indicating the experiencing of the RLF after performing the DAPS fallback, wherein the fallback-flag information may be used to determine whether time-conn-failure information or conn-time-failure represents a time elapsed between experiencing the failure while attempting the handover from the source cell to the target cell, based at least in part on which the wireless device performed the DAPS fallback, and experiencing the RLF (¶0087-88, storing information such as storing fallback indication/flag information indicating failure and the time elapsed since the last handover initialization until connection failure based on at least one fallback occurs and experiencing RLF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of QIU into ERICSSON and Lenovo invention in order for measuring network parameters of a wireless communication network and reporting the measured network parameters to a network node for configuring self-organizing networks.
Conclusion
5. 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 FARIDEH MADANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 9 AM to 5 PM 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, JINSONG HU can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/FARIDEH MADANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643