Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 01/31/2024.
Notice of 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 .
Claims Status
Claims 15-17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-14 and 18 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2024 and 02/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (Publication No. US 2023/0397284), the prior art discloses that the UE configured with fast MCG link recovery by configuration information in the RRCReconfiguration message may declare RLF and collect RLF report content; see ¶ 124. At the same time, the UE may start a T316 timer according to a setting value of the T316 timer included in the RRCReconfiguration message, and transmit an MCGFailureInformation message to the SN BS 815 via a split SRB or SRB3 (830 or 835); see ¶ 124. The SN BS 815 may identify that MCG failure has occurred according to the MCGFailureInformation message; see ¶ 124.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under U.S.C. the § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 14, recite the language "computer memory” which typically covers forms of non-transitory media as well as transitory media. Furthermore, the specification fails to provide any definition that would deny the interpretation of the language as transitory media; see ¶ 99 & ¶ 347 of PGPUB US20240349088. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes transitory media such as signal per se. As result, the scope of the claim includes software stored on a signal and must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 18, recite the language "computer memory” which typically covers forms of non-transitory media as well as transitory media. Furthermore, the specification fails to provide any definition that would deny the interpretation of the language as transitory media; see ¶ 11 & ¶ 80 of PGPUB US20240349088. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes transitory media such as signal per se. As result, the scope of the claim includes software stored on a signal and must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-10, 12-14, and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Awada et al. ( Publication Patent No. US 2023/0319669, hereinafter referred to as Awada).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Awada discloses establishing a connection with a first cell group and a second cell group (A UE is in dual-connection (DC) [connection] with a master node (MN) [first cell group] and a secondary node (SN) [second cell group], wherein the cells associated with the MN define a master cell group (MCG), and the cells associated with the SN define a secondary cell group (SCG); see figure 5 & ¶ 85-87.);
receiving information for a first timer value and a second timer value (The UE receive a RRC configuration enabling MCG failure recovery based a first timer value (V1) and a second timer value (V2); see figure 5 step 505 & ¶ 145-146.);
detecting a failure on the first cell group (The UE detect the radio link failure (RLF) of MN, wherein the cells associated with the MN define the MCG; figure 5 step 510 & ¶ 87.);
starting a timer having a timer value after detecting the failure on the first cell group (The UE start the second timer value after detecting the RLF of MN [first cell group]; see figure 5 step 555.); and
performing a recovery procedure to recover the failure on the first cell group based on the second cell group while the timer is running (The UE performs the MN [first cell group] recovery, via the SN [second cell group], before the timer is stop; see figure 5 steps 565-595.),
wherein the timer value is determined among the first timer value and the second timer value based on at least one of i) a state of the second cell group, ii) whether a random access procedure to the second cell group is required for the recovery procedure, or iii) a time duration required for the random access procedure (The UE applies, when it is determined that the CPC condition is met while the first timer value (V1) is running, the other value (e.g. the longer value) second timer value (V2); wherein the second timer value enables to complete the random access procedure for the CPC; see figure 5 step 555 & ¶ 150.).
Regarding claim 7, Awada discloses transmitting, to the first cell group via the second cell group, a request message for recovering the failure on the first cell group; and initiating the recovery procedure upon transmitting the request message (After detecting the radio link failure (RLF) of MN [first cell group], the UE applies the first timer value (e.g. short value of T316) to starts MCG failure recovery procedure and sends MCG failure information message [request message] via the SN [second cell group]; see figure 5 steps 520-530 & ¶ 147-148.).
Regarding claim 8, Awada discloses based on the random access procedure to the second cell group being not required and skipped for the recovery procedure (After detecting the radio link failure (RLF) of MN [first cell group], the UE applies the first timer value (e.g. short value of T316); see figure 5 step 520 & ¶ 147. Examiner notes that the conditional PSCell change (CPC) execution condition is not met and the random access procedure skipped.):
the timer value is determined as the first timer value (The UE start the first timer value to starts MCG failure recovery procedure; see figure 5 steps 520);
the starting of the timer comprises starting the timer having the first timer value upon transmitting the request message (The UE start the first timer value (e.g. short value of T316) to starts MCG failure recovery procedure and sends MCG failure information message [request message] via the SN [second cell group]; see figure 5 steps 520-530 & ¶ 147-148.).; and
the performing of the recovery procedure comprises performing the recovery procedure while the timer having the first timer value is running (The UE performs the MN [first cell group] recovery, via the SN [second cell group], before the timer is stop; see figure 5 steps 530-545 & 595.).
Regarding claim 9, Awada discloses, based on the random access procedure to the second cell group being required for the recovery procedure, further comprising (After detecting the radio link failure (RLF) of MN [first cell group] and while first timer value is running, the UE determined that the conditional PSCell change (CPC) condition is met for SN [second cell group]; wherein the CPC condition requires to execute a random access procedure; see figure 5 steps 550/565 & ¶ 150.):
initiating and performing the random access procedure to the second cell group (The UE execute the random access procedure with the SN [second cell group]; see figure 5 step 565.),
wherein the timer value is determined as the second timer value (The UE applies, when it is determined that the CPC condition is met while timer T316 is running, the second timer value (e.g. the longer value) for T316; see figure 5 step 555 & ¶ 150.),
wherein the starting of the timer comprises starting the timer having the second timer value upon i) initiating the random access procedure to the second cell group (The UE execute the random access procedure with the SN [second cell group] after applying the second timer value; see figure 5 steps 555 & 565.), or ii) transmitting a message 3 (MSG3) comprising the request message during the random access procedure, and
wherein the performing of the recovery procedure comprises performing the recovery procedure while the timer having the second timer value is running (The UE performs the MN [first cell group] recovery, via the SN [second cell group], before the timer is stop; see figure 5 steps 555-590 & 595.).
Regarding claim 10, Awada discloses that the random access procedure to the second cell group is required for the recovery procedure based on one or more conditions being met (When the conditional PSCell change (CPC) execution condition is determined to be met by the UE, the UE apply the second timer value and start the random access procedure in order to detach from the source PSCell and accesses to a (new) target PSCell; see figure 5 steps 550-565.),
wherein the random access procedure to the second cell group is not required and skipped for the recovery procedure based on none of the one or more conditions being met, and wherein the one or more conditions comprise at least one of: a condition that a timing alignment timer (TAT) for the second cell group expires; or a condition that a quality of at least one beam determined for the second cell group is less than a threshold, wherein the threshold value is predetermined or configured by a network.
Regarding claim 12, Awada discloses that the second timer value is larger than the first timer value (The UE can start the recovery timer with longer recovery timer value in response to the MCG failure; see figure 5 step 555 & ¶ 150.).
Regarding claim 13, Awada discloses that the UE is in communication with at least one of a mobile device, a network, or autonomous vehicles other than the UE (A UE is in dual-connection (DC) [connection] with a master node (MN) [first cell group] and a secondary node (SN) [second cell group], wherein the cells associated with the MN define a master cell group (MCG), and the cells associated with the SN define a secondary cell group (SCG); see figure 5 & ¶ 85-87.).
Regarding claim 18, Awada discloses a network node adapted to operate in a wireless communication system, the network node comprising (A UE is in dual-connection (DC) [connection] with a master node (MN) [first cell group] and a secondary node (SN) [second cell group], wherein the cells associated with the MN define a master cell group (MCG), and the cells associated with the SN define a secondary cell group (SCG); see figure 5 & ¶ 85-87.):
at least one transceiver (It is inherent that the network node includes a transceiver in order to communicate with the UE.);
at least processor (It is inherent that the network node includes a processor in order to communicate with the UE.); and
at least one computer memory operably connectable to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, perform operations comprising (It is inherent that the network node includes at least one computer memory operably connectable to the at least one processor in order to communicate with the UE.):
establishing a dual connectivity (DC) with a first cell group for a user equipment (UE) (The UE receive a RRC configuration message from the MN [first cell group], wherein the MN is part of the DC of the UE; see figure 5 step 505.);
receiving, from the UE, a request message for recovering a failure on the first cell group (The UE sends MCG failure information message after detecting the radio link failure (RLF) of MN; see figure 5 step 510-520.); and
performing a recovery procedure to recover the failure on the first cell group while a timer having a timer value is running (The UE start the second timer value after detecting the RLF of MN [first cell group]; see figure 5 step 555. The UE performs the MN [first cell group] recovery, via the SN [second cell group], before the timer is stop; see figure 5 steps 565-595.);
wherein the timer is started after the UE detects the failure on the first cell group(The UE start the second timer value after detecting the RLF of MN [first cell group]; see figure 5 step 555.), and
wherein the timer value is determined among a first timer value and a second timer value based on at least one of i) a state of the second cell group, ii) whether a random access procedure to the second cell group is required for the recovery procedure, or iii) a time duration required for the random access procedure (The UE applies, when it is determined that the CPC condition is met while the first timer value (V1) is running, the other value (e.g. the longer value) second timer value (V2); wherein the second timer value enables to complete the random access procedure for the CPC; see figure 5 step 555 & ¶ 150.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 AIA 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 11 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada et al. ( Patent Publication No. US , hereinafter referred as Awada) in view of Wu (Publication No. US 2023/0284314, hereinafter referred as Wu).
Regarding claim 11, Awada discloses performing the random access procedure while the timer for MCG recovery is running, but fails to explicitly discloses that “the timer value is determined as the first timer value based on the time duration required for the random access procedure being shorter than or equal to the first timer value or a threshold value,
wherein the timer value is determined as the second timer value based on the time duration required for the random access procedure being longer than the first timer value or the threshold value,
wherein the threshold value is predetermined or configured by a network”. However, in analogous art, Wu discloses if the recovery timer value is smaller than or equal to the threshold value, the UE can perform an MCG failure information procedure in response to the determination; see figure 9B step 907B & ¶ 201. The UE set [predetermined] the threshold value to a larger value if the UE 102 does not have a packet-based call and set the threshold value to a smaller value if the UE 102 has a packet-based call; see ¶ 200. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Awanda recovery system with the threshold mechanism of Wu in order to enable the fast recovery of the MCG link based on whether the UE has a packet-based call; see ¶ 200.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada et al. ( Patent Publication No. US , hereinafter referred as Awada) in view of Ozturk (Publication No. US 2022/0007256, hereinafter referred as Ozturk).
Regarding claim 2, Awada discloses performing the random access procedure while the timer for MCG recovery is running, but fails to explicitly discloses that the state of the second cell group comprises at least one of a first state or a second state,
wherein the first state is a state in which the UE monitors a first set of resources for a control channel on the second cell group, and
wherein the second state is a state in which the UE does not monitor a control channel on the second cell group or monitors a second set of resources for a control channel on the second cell group. However, in analogous art, Ozturk discloses a UE may detect RLF with an MN of an MCG while the SCG is in a deactivated state; see figure 6 step 625 & ¶ 109. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Awanda recovery system with the activation mechanism of Ozturk in order to activate a secondary cell group for recovery of the MCG while using a user equipment configured for dual connectivity.
Regarding claim 3, Awada discloses that the first cell group is a master cell group (MCG) and the second cell group is a secondary cell group (SCG) (A UE is in dual-connection (DC) [connection] with a master node (MN) [first cell group] and a secondary node (SN) [second cell group], wherein the cells associated with the MN define a master cell group (MCG), and the cells associated with the SN define a secondary cell group (SCG); see figure 5 & ¶ 85-87.), and wherein the first state is an SCG-activated state in which the SCG is activated.
Awada discloses performing the random access procedure while the timer for MCG recovery is running, but fails to explicitly discloses that the second state is an SCG-deactivated state in which the SCG is deactivated. However, in analogous art, Ozturk discloses a UE may detect RLF with an MCG while the SCG is in a deactivated state; see figure 6 step 625 & ¶ 109. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Awanda recovery system with the activation mechanism of Ozturk in order to activate a secondary cell group for recovery of the MCG while using a user equipment configured for dual connectivity.
Regarding claim 4, Awada discloses that the timer value is determined as the first timer value based on the state of the second cell group being the first state (The UE applies, when it is determined that the CPC condition is not met [first state], the first timer value (e.g. the shorter value) for T316; see figure 5 step 520.), and
wherein the timer value is determined as the second timer value based on the state of the second cell group being the second state (The UE applies, when it is determined that the CPC condition is met [second state] while timer T316 is running, the second timer value (e.g. the longer value) for T316; see figure 5 step 555 & ¶ 150.).
Regarding claim 5, Awada discloses that the second cell group is in the second state, further comprising: entering the first state of the second cell group from the second state of the second cell group for performing the recovery procedure (The UE applies, when it is determined that the CPC condition is met [first state] while timer T316 is running, the second timer value (e.g. the longer value) for T316; see figure 5 step 555 & ¶ 150. Examiner notes that the second state of the second cell group is when the CPC condition have not been met; see figure 5 steps 510-545.).
Regarding claim 6, Awada discloses that the random access procedure to the second cell group is required for entering the first state of the second cell group from the second state of the second cell group (After detecting the radio link failure (RLF) of MN [first cell group] and while first timer value is running, the UE determined that the conditional PSCell change (CPC) condition is met for SN [second cell group]; wherein the CPC condition requires to execute a random access procedure; see figure 5 steps 550/565 & ¶ 150.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472