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 .
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.
Claims 19-20, 23-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US (2022/0150774) in view of Zhang et al. US (2021/0167839).
Regarding Claim 19, Wu discloses An apparatus (see Fig. 1D), comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 1D i.e., processing hardware & Para’s [0038-0039]), and at least one memory storing instructions (see Para’s [0038-0039]), the at least one memory and the instructions configured to, with the at least one processor (see Para’s [0038-0039] i.e., the processing hardware 160 can include one or more general-purpose processors and non-transitory computer-readable memory storing machine-readable instructions executable on the one or more general-purpose processors), cause a terminal device (see Fig. 2 i.e., UE 102) to detect a failure (FAIL) related to a serving cell (C-A) (see Fig. 2 i.e., step 250 & Para’s [0002], [0032], [0038] i.e., The SCG failure controller 162 can detect SCG failures, [0045-0046] i.e., the UE 102 detects 250 SCG failure on a radio connection between the UE 102 and the SgNB 106 (i.e., “serving cell”) for example SCG RLF)
and to transmit a first indication (IND-1) (see Fig. 2 i.e., step 254) characterizing the failure (FAIL) to a network node (see Fig. 2 i.e., MgNB 104 & Para’s [0046] i.e., the UE 102 also provides an indication to the MgNB 104 that the SCG has failed. The UE 102 in some implementations sends an SCG failure information message to the MgNB 104, [0054], & [0061]) associated with a cell (see Para’s [0002] i.e., the cells associated with the MN define a master cell group (MCG) & [0032] i.e., the MgNB 104 covers an MCG 124 made up of one or more cells)
While Wu discloses the network node such as the MgNB associated with a cell of a master cell group (MCG) (see Para’s [0002] & [0032]), Wu does not disclose the network node associated with an assisting cell. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhang et al. US (2021/0167839).
Zhang discloses an assisting cell is included in a master cell group (MCG) of a network node (see Para’s [0138-0139], [0141-0146] i.e., primary base station, [0151] & [0153-0155] i.e., a cell in the MCG assists a cell in the SCG in recovering a link)
(Zhang suggests the assisting cell in the MCG is used for assisting a cell in the SCG for performing link recovery (see Para’s [0139] & [0153-0155])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the network node such as the MgNB associated with a cell of a master cell group (MCG) as disclosed in Wu to include the assisting cell in the MCG of the network node disclosed in Zhang, which results in the network node associated with an assisting cell, because the motivation lies in Zhang that the assisting cell in the MCG is used for assisting a cell in the SCG for performing link recovery.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Wu in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the terminal device to: perform at least one layer 1 measurement (MEAS) related to at least one potential target cell, (Wu, see Para [0046] i.e., the SCG failure information message can include at least one measurement result (or report) indicating that the UE 102 measures…a relatively high strength and/or quality on a DL carrier frequency of the gNB/ng-eNB 108 (i.e., “target cell”)…the at least one measurement result may include a RSRP (i.e., “layer 1 measurement”), RSRQ, SINR)
and to transmit the first indication (IND-1) based on the at least one layer 1 measurement (MEAS), (Wu, see Fig. 2 i.e., 250 & Para [0046] i.e., the SCG failure information message can include at least one measurement result)
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Wu in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the terminal device to perform at least one of: a) sending a radio resource control, RRC, message (RRC-MSG-FAIL; e8) indicating the failure (FAIL) to a central unit (CU) associated with the serving cell (C-A) using the assisting cell radio link,
b) receiving a layer 3 handover command (HO-COM) to perform handover to a target cell, (Wu, see Fig. 2 i.e., steps 270-290 i.e., RRC reconfiguration 290 (i.e., “layer 3 handover command”) message sent to UE 102 to handover to gNB 108 & Para [0050] i.e., The MgNB 104 then can forward the RRC reconfiguration message from the gNB 108 to the UE 102, thereby instructing the UE 102 to hand over to the gNB 108 (i.e., “target cell”))
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Wu in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the terminal device to perform at least one of: sending a MAC message (MAC-MSG-FAIL'; e16) indicating the failure (FAIL) to a distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell (C-B), b) receiving a request (REQ-1) from the distributed unit (DU) to transmit a radio link failure report to a central unit (CU) associated with the serving cell (C-A), c) transmitting radio link failure report (RLF-REP) to a central unit (CU),
d) receiving a handover command (HO-COM') to perform handover to a target cell, (Wu, see Fig. 2 i.e., steps 270-290 i.e., RRC reconfiguration 290 (i.e., “layer 3 handover command”) message sent to UE 102 to handover to gNB 108 & Para [0050] i.e., The MgNB 104 then can forward the RRC reconfiguration message from the gNB 108 to the UE 102, thereby instructing the UE 102 to hand over to the gNB 108 (i.e., “target cell”))
Regarding Claim 25, Wu discloses an apparatus (see Fig. 1B & Para’s [0035-0036]), comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 1B i.e., processor hardware 140 & Para [0035]), and at least one memory storing instructions (see Para [0039]), the at least one memory and the instructions configured to, with the at least one processor (see Para [0039] i.e., the processing hardware 140 can include one or more general-purpose processors and non-transitory computer-readable memory storing machine-readable instructions executable on the one or more general-purpose processors), cause a distributed unit (DU) (see Fig. 4 i.e., MgNB-DU 154 & Para [0036]) providing a cell (see Para’s [0002] i.e., the cells associated with the MN define a master cell group (MCG) & [0032] i.e., the MgNB 104 covers an MCG 124 made up of one or more cells) to: receive a first indication (IND-1) from a terminal device, (see Fig. 4 i.e., step 454 & Para [0061] i.e., The UE 102 sends an SCG failure information message to the MgNB-DU 154)
the first indication (IND-1) characterizing a failure (FAIL) related to a serving cell (C-A) of the terminal device, (see Fig. 4 i.e., step 454 & Para’s [0002], [0032], [0038] i.e., The SCG failure controller 162 can detect SCG failures, [0045-0046] i.e., the UE 102 detects 250 SCG failure on a radio connection between the UE 102 and the SgNB 106 (i.e., “serving cell”) for example SCG RLF & Para [0061] i.e., The UE 102 sends an SCG failure information message to the MgNB-DU 154)
While Wu discloses the network node such as the MgNB associated with a cell of a master cell group (MCG) (see Para’s [0002] & [0032]), Wu does not disclose the network node associated with an assisting cell. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhang et al. US (2021/0167839).
Zhang discloses an assisting cell is included in a master cell group (MCG) of a network node (see Para’s [0138-0139], [0141-0146] i.e., primary base station, [0151] & [0153-0155] i.e., a cell in the MCG assists a cell in the SCG in recovering a link)
(Zhang suggests the assisting cell in the MCG is used for assisting a cell in the SCG for performing link recovery (see Para’s [0139] & [0153-0155])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the network node such as the MgNB associated with a cell of a master cell group (MCG) as disclosed in Wu to include the assisting cell in the MCG of the network node disclosed in Zhang, which results in the network node associated with an assisting cell, because the motivation lies in Zhang that the assisting cell in the MCG is used for assisting a cell in the SCG for performing link recovery.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Wu in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the distributed unit (DU) to perform at least one of: a) receiving a radio resource control, RRC, message (RRC-MSG-FAIL; e8) indicating the failure (FAIL) from the terminal device and forwarding the RRC message (RRC-MSG-FAIL; e9) to a central unit (CU),
b) sending a layer 3 handover command (HO-COM) received from a central unit (CU) to the terminal device, (Wu, see Fig. 4 i.e., steps 490 and 492 & Para’s [0065] i.e., The MgNB-CU 152 sends 492 to the UE 102 an RRC Reconfiguration message (i.e., “layer 3 handover command”) via the MgNB-DU 154 (event 490). The MgNB-CU 152 thereby instructs the UE 102 to perform a handover to the MgNB-DU 156)
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Wu in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the distributed unit (DU) to perform at least one of: a) receive a MAC message (MAC-MSG-FAIL'; e16) indicating the failure (FAIL) from the terminal device, b) transmit a request (REQ-1) to the terminal device to transmit a radio link failure report in a radio resource control, RRC, message, c) receive a radio link failure report (RLF-REP) from the terminal device and forwarding (e19) the RRC radio link failure report (RLF-REP) or at least a part thereof to a central unit (CU),
d) transmit a layer 3 handover command (HO-COM') received from the central unit (CU) to the terminal device, (Wu, see Fig. 4 i.e., steps 490 and 492 & Para’s [0065] i.e., The MgNB-CU 152 sends 492 to the UE 102 an RRC Reconfiguration message (i.e., “layer 3 handover command”) via the MgNB-DU 154 (event 490). The MgNB-CU 152 thereby instructs the UE 102 to perform a handover to the MgNB-DU 156)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US (2022/0150774) in view of Zhang et al. US (2021/0167839) as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Purkayastha et al. US (2022/0225457), and further in view of Teyeb et al. US (2020/0305213).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Wu in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the terminal device to: b) the terminal device to enable a link failure recovery by sending a message (MAC-MSG-FAIL; e6) indicating the failure (FAIL) to a distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell (C-B), (Wu, see Fig. 4 i.e., step 454 & Para’s [0006], [0046-0050] i.e., link failure recovery procedure is performed based on SCG failure information message and handover to gNB 108 & [0061] i.e., the UE 102 can send the SCG failure information message to the MgNB-DU 154), but does not disclose the claim feature in step b) of the terminal device to receive configuration information (I-CONF) characterizing at least one of: b) an indication (IND-a) for the terminal device to enable the link failure recovery. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Purkayastha et al. US (2022/0225457).
Purkayastha discloses the terminal device to receive configuration information (I-CONF) characterizing at least one of: b) an indication (IND-a) for the terminal device to enable the link failure recovery (see Fig. 3 & Para’s [0070] i.e., the UE may receive, from the master node, a configuration that enables the UE to initiate the SCG failure recovery procedure based at least in part on the BFD. In other words, the UE initiating the SCG failure recovery procedure via the MCG based at least in part on the BFD may be configurable by a network, & [0090])
by sending a message indicating the failure (FAIL) to a master node (see Fig. 3 i.e., step 310 & Para’s [0059] & [0067] i.e., the UE may initiate an SCG failure recovery procedure, which may involve transmitting the SCG failure information message, via the MCG)
(Purkayastha suggests the configuration enables and configures the UE to initiate the SCG failure recovery procedure for recovering from the detected SCG radio link failure (RLF), (see Para’s [0059] & [0066-0070])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the link failure recovery performed by the terminal device by sending a message indicating the failure to a distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell as disclosed in Wu in view of Zhang to receive the configuration information characterizing an indication for the terminal device to enable the link failure recovery as disclosed in the teachings of Purkayastha, because the motivation lies in Purkayastha that the configuration enables and configures the UE to initiate the SCG failure recovery procedure for recovering from the detected SCG radio link failure (RLF).
While Wu discloses sending a message indicating the failure (FAIL) to a distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell (C-B), (Wu, see Fig. 4 i.e., step 454 & Para [0061] i.e., the UE 102 sends 454 an SCG failure information message to the MgNB-DU 154), the combination of Wu in view of Zhang, and further in view of Purkayastha does not disclose the message is a medium access control, MAC, message. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Teyeb et al. US (2020/0305213).
Teyeb discloses a UE sending to the network, a medium access control, MAC, message indicating SCG failure (see Para’s [0094] i.e., processor 603 may receive a MAC CE from the wireless terminal indicating failure of the SCG with the wireless terminal, [0154], & [0200])
(Teyeb suggests the MAC message is sent to the network for indicating the SCG of the UE has failed in order for the network to prioritize the scheduling of the UE over other UES for scheduling UE data that was originally configured to use the SCG path or configures the UE to use a new SN/SCG (see Para’s [0098] & [0200], [0205], & [0210])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the message indicating the SCG failure to the distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell as disclosed in Wu in view of Zhang, and further in view of Purkayastha to be the medium access control, MAC, message indicating SCG failure as sent by the terminal to the network as disclosed in the teachings of Teyeb, because the motivation lies in Teyeb that the MAC message is sent to the network for indicating the SCG of the UE has failed in order for the network to prioritize the scheduling of the UE over other UES for scheduling UE data that was originally configured to use the SCG path or configures the UE to use a new SN/SCG.
Claims 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US (2022/0150774) in view of Zhang et al. US (2021/0167839) as applied to claims 19 and 25 above, and further in view of Teyeb et al. US (2020/0305213).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Wu in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the terminal device to perform at least one of: a) sending a message indicating the failure (FAIL) to a distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell (C-B), (Wu, see Fig. 4 i.e., step 454 & Para [0061] i.e., the UE 102 sends 454 an SCG failure information message to the MgNB-DU 154), but does not disclose the message is a medium access control, MAC, message. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Teyeb et al. US (2020/0305213).
Teyeb discloses a UE sending to the network, a medium access control, MAC, message indicating SCG failure (see Para’s [0094] i.e., processor 603 may receive a MAC CE from the wireless terminal indicating failure of the SCG with the wireless terminal, [0154], & [0200])
(Teyeb suggests the MAC message is sent to the network for indicating the SCG of the UE has failed in order for the network to prioritize the scheduling of the UE over other UES for scheduling UE data that was originally configured to use the SCG path or configures the UE to use a new SN/SCG (see Para’s [0098], [0200], [0205], & [0210])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the message indicating the SCG failure to the distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell as disclosed in Wu in view of Zhang to be the medium access control, MAC, message indicating SCG failure as sent by the terminal to the network as disclosed in the teachings of Teyeb, because the motivation lies in Teyeb that the MAC message is sent to the network for indicating the SCG of the UE has failed in order for the network to prioritize the scheduling of the UE over other UES for scheduling UE data that was originally configured to use the SCG path or configures the UE to use a new SN/SCG.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim is directed towards an apparatus which performs the same claim features as claim 22 with respect to step a). Therefore claim 26 is rejected as obvious over the combination of Wu in view of Zhang, and further in view of Teyeb for the same reason as claim 22.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US (2022/0150774) in view of Zhang et al. US (2021/0167839), further in view of Purkayastha et al. US (2022/0225457), and further in view of Teyeb et al. US (2020/0305213).
Regarding Claim 29, Wu discloses an apparatus (see Fig. 1B & Para’s [0035-0036]), comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 1B i.e., processor hardware 140 & Para [0035]), and at least one memory storing instructions (see Para [0039]), the at least one memory and the instructions configured to, with the at least one processor (see Para [0039] i.e., the processing hardware 140 can include one or more general-purpose processors and non-transitory computer-readable memory storing machine-readable instructions executable on the one or more general-purpose processors), cause a network device (CU, DU) (see Fig. 4 i.e., MgNB-DU 154 & Para [0036]) to cause the terminal device to enable a radio link failure recovery by sending a message indicating a failure (FAIL) to a distributed unit (DU) (see Fig. 4 i.e., step 454 & Para’s [0038] i.e., The SCG failure controller 162 can detect SCG failures, [0046-0050] i.e., link failure recovery procedure is performed based on SCG failure information message and handover & Para [0061] i.e., The UE 102 sends an SCG failure information message to the MgNB-DU 154)
associated with a cell (see Para’s [0002] i.e., the cells associated with the MN define a master cell group (MCG) & [0032] i.e., the MgNB 104 covers an MCG 124 made up of one or more cells)
While Wu discloses the network node such as the MgNB associated with a cell of a master cell group (MCG) (see Para’s [0002] & [0032]), Wu does not disclose the network node associated with an assisting cell. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhang et al. US (2021/0167839).
Zhang discloses an assisting cell is included in a master cell group (MCG) of a network node (see Para’s [0138-0139], [0141-0146] i.e., primary base station, [0151] & [0153-0155] i.e., a cell in the MCG assists a cell in the SCG in recovering a link)
(Zhang suggests the assisting cell in the MCG is used for assisting a cell in the SCG for performing link recovery (see Para’s [0139] & [0153-0155])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the network node such as the MgNB associated with a cell of a master cell group (MCG) as disclosed in Wu to include the assisting cell in the MCG of the network node disclosed in Zhang, which results in the network node associated with an assisting cell, because the motivation lies in Zhang that the assisting cell in the MCG is used for assisting a cell in the SCG for performing link recovery.
While Wu discloses the terminal device to enable a link failure recovery by sending a message indicating the failure (FAIL) to a distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell (C-B), (Wu, see Fig. 4 i.e., step 454 & Para’s [0006], [0046-0050] i.e., link failure recovery procedure is performed based on SCG failure information message and handover to gNB 108 & [0061] i.e., the UE 102 can send the SCG failure information message to the MgNB-DU 154), the combination of Wu in view of Zhang does not disclose the claim features of the network device to provide configuration information to the terminal device, the configuration information (I-CONF) characterizing at least one of: b) an indication (IND-a) for the terminal device to enable the link failure recovery. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Purkayastha et al. US (2022/0225457).
Purkayastha discloses the terminal device to receive configuration information (I-CONF) characterizing at least one of: b) an indication (IND-a) for the terminal device to enable the link failure recovery (see Fig. 3 & Para’s [0070] i.e., the UE may receive, from the master node, a configuration that enables the UE to initiate the SCG failure recovery procedure based at least in part on the BFD. In other words, the UE initiating the SCG failure recovery procedure via the MCG based at least in part on the BFD may be configurable by a network, & [0090])
by sending a message indicating the failure (FAIL) to a master node (see Fig. 3 i.e., step 310 & Para’s [0059] & [0067] i.e., the UE may initiate an SCG failure recovery procedure, which may involve transmitting the SCG failure information message, via the MCG)
(Purkayastha suggests the configuration enables and configures the UE to initiate the SCG failure recovery procedure for recovering from the detected SCG radio link failure (RLF), (see Para’s [0059] & [0066-0070])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the link failure recovery performed by the terminal device by sending a message indicating the failure to a distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell as disclosed in Wu in view of Zhang to receive the configuration information from the network device characterizing an indication for the terminal device to enable the link failure recovery as disclosed in the teachings of Purkayastha, because the motivation lies in Purkayastha that the configuration enables and configures the UE to initiate the SCG failure recovery procedure for recovering from the detected SCG radio link failure (RLF).
While Wu discloses sending a message indicating the failure (FAIL) to a distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell (C-B), (Wu, see Fig. 4 i.e., step 454 & Para [0061] i.e., the UE 102 sends 454 an SCG failure information message to the MgNB-DU 154), the combination of Wu in view of Zhang, and further in view of Purkayastha does not disclose the message is a medium access control, MAC, message. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Teyeb et al. US (2020/0305213).
Teyeb discloses a UE sending to the network, a medium access control, MAC, message indicating SCG failure (see Para’s [0094] i.e., processor 603 may receive a MAC CE from the wireless terminal indicating failure of the SCG with the wireless terminal, [0154], & [0200])
(Teyeb suggests the MAC message is sent to the network for indicating the SCG of the UE has failed in order for the network to prioritize the scheduling of the UE over other UES for scheduling UE data that was originally configured to use the SCG path or configures the UE to use a new SN/SCG (see Para’s [0098] & [0200], [0205], & [0210])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the message indicating the SCG failure to the distributed unit (DU) associated with the assisting cell as disclosed in Wu in view of Zhang, and further in view of Purkayastha to be the medium access control, MAC, message indicating SCG failure as sent by the terminal to the network as disclosed in the teachings of Teyeb, because the motivation lies in Teyeb that the MAC message is sent to the network for indicating the SCG of the UE has failed in order for the network to prioritize the scheduling of the UE over other UES for scheduling UE data that was originally configured to use the SCG path or configures the UE to use a new SN/SCG.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN A BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-7511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ADNAN BAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461