DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth.
The rejection of claims 3, 18, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. However the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has not been withdrawn due to dependent claim 11 which recites the same claim features as previous claims 3, 18, and 26 but was not indicated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained based on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, lines 1-3 recite the claim feature “wherein the report further comprises: a first field corresponding to a handover report type, wherein the handover report type of the report is set to EPS fallback failure in response to the fallback indication indicating a voice fallback”. It is unclear how the handover report type of the report is set to EPS fallback failure as claimed in claim 11, when in light of the applicants specification according to Fig. 5, the handover report type of the report is set to indicate a reason for a handover report procedure including possible values indicating the handover was performed too early or too late, or if the handover was performed with the wrong cell or BS (see applicants specification i.e., Fig. 5 & Para’s [0088] & [0093-0095]). Therefore the handover report type of the report being set to indicate if the handover was performed too early or too late, or with the wrong cell does not describe the handover report type of the report is set to EPS fallback failure. The examiner has not located anywhere in applicants specification disclosing “the handover report type of the report is set to EPS fallback failure”.
Referring to Fig. 5 the field 510 which is a voice fallback indication field is the only field in the report which describes anything related to setting any EPS fallback information such as values indicating whether the EPS fallback was a voice fallback or not, (see applicants specification i.e., Para’s [0089-0090] & [0093-0095]). However the field 510 which sets EPS fallback information is not the same as the handover report type field 508. Therefore it is unclear how the handover report type of the report is set to EPS fallback failure in light of the applicants disclosure. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the claimed handover report type to indicate or set any handover related information.
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 1-5, 7, 16-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU US (2023/0239750) in view of Cho et al. US (2014/0146759), further in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448).
Regarding Claim 1, WU discloses a method of wireless communication (see Fig. 1 & Fig. 6 & Para’s [0128] & [0133]), comprising: receiving a first signal by a first wireless communications device (see Fig. 1 i.e., UE 101) from a first next generation radio access network (NG-RAN) base station, (see Para’s [0030] i.e., BS 102 may include a NG-RAN [0129], [0134-0136] i.e., (1) A NR BS (i.e., “first NG-RAN base station”) decides to move a UE (i.e., “first wireless communication device”) to an E-UTRAN cell for a voice traffic. (2) The UE receives a RRC release message (i.e., “first signal”) including voiceFallbackIndication from a source cell of the NR BS, & [0153])
the first signal including a fallback indication, (see Para’s [0129] & [0136] i.e., The UE receives a RRC release message (i.e., “first signal”) including voiceFallbackIndication from a source cell of the NR BS)
in response to receiving the first signal (see Para’s [0136-0137]), transmitting a second signal by the first wireless communications device to a first evolved-universal mobile telecommunications system terrestrial radio access network (E-UTRAN) base station, (see Para’s [0129-0130] i.e., If the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRAN cell (i.e., “first E-UTRAN base station”) after selecting the E-UTRAN cell, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., connection setup with the E-UTAN cell suggests a connection request which may be a “second signal” is transmitted), [0136-0137] i.e., The UE attempts to select an E-UTRAN cell for accessing, but a failure occurs during the handover procedure to the selected E-UTRAN cell, & [0153])
and transmitting a third signal by the first wireless communications device to a second wireless communications device (see Para’s [0130], [0138-0141] i.e., RLF report information, & [0153]), the third signal including a report in response to a connection failure with the first E-UTRAN base station, (see Para’s [0130], [0134-0138] i.e., (3) The UE attempts to select an E-UTRAN cell for accessing but a failure occurs during the handover procedure to the selected E-UTRAN cell. (4) The UE may reselect back to the source cell. Alternatively, the UE may select a different cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”) from both the source cell and the selected E-UTRAN cell. When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”), the UE needs to report the RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”), & [0153-0157] i.e., or the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRA cell after selecting the E-UTRA cell. Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”). The UE may transmit RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”) to a serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”))
While Wu suggests transmitting a second signal such as a connection request by performing a connection setup with the E-UTRAN base station (see Para [0130], [0137], & [0153]), Wu does not explicitly disclose transmitting a second signal by the UE to the E-UTRAN base station, the second signal including a connection request. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Cho et al. US (2014/0146759).
Cho discloses transmitting a second signal by a UE to a E-UTRAN base station when performing a connection setup with the E-UTRAN base station, (see Fig. 3 i.e., send RRC connection request message 304 from UE to E-UTRAN base station & Para’s [0046-0049] i.e., Fig 3 depicts the RRC connection setup in the LTE communication system…When the UE in the idle mode at operation 300 performs the RRC connection to make a call or to respond to the paging message at operation 302 of the E-UTRAN, the UE sends an RRC connection request message (i.e., “second signal”) to the E-UTRAN at operation 304…The E-UTRAN receiving the RRC connection request message from the UE accepts the RRC connection request of the UE at operation 304 when the radio resource is sufficient, and sends the RRC connection setup message being a response message to the UE at operation 306…for setting the RRC connection with the E-UTRAN at operation 310 and enters an RRC connection mode at operation 312).
the second signal including a connection request (see Fig. 3 i.e., RRC connection request message 304 & Para’s [0046-0049])
(Cho suggests the UE transmits the RRC connection request message to the E-UTRAN base station for successfully setting up the RRC connection with the E-UTRAN for performing data communications including a call, (see Fig. 3 & Para’s [0046-0049])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the connection setup performed by the UE with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu to include transmitting a second signal include a connection request such as the RRC connection request message disclosed in the teachings of Cho who discloses a UE transmitting the RRC connection request message to a E-UTRAN base station when performing a connection setup with the E-UTRAN base station, because the motivation lies in Cho that the UE transmits the RRC connection request message to the E-UTRAN base station for successfully setting up the RRC connection with the E-UTRAN for performing data communications including a call.
While Wu discloses the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station (see Para’s [0129-0130] & [0156-0157]), the combination of Wu in view of Cho does not disclose wherein the report indicates a reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175).
LI disclose wherein the RLF report indicates a reason for the connection failure with a base station (i.e., cell) (see Para’s [0089] i.e., In case that the terminal device wrongly executes the handover to a certain cell, after the terminal device leaves the cell quickly, the air interface link quality with the cell deteriorates, and the RLF is declared. At this time, the terminal device has to execute the cell reselection and execute the random access on the new cell & [0090] i.e., After accessing a new cell, the terminal device can report the RLF information…In this way, the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell (i.e., “reason” such has handover to wrong cell), and sends the RLF information report to the source base station)
(Li suggests when the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell based on the RLF information report, the base station sends the RLF information report to the source base station in order for the source base station to adjust the relevant parameters of the traditional handover, thereby optimizing the handover process, (see Para [0090])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the RLF report transmitted in response to the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu in view of Cho to indicate a reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station such as handover to the wrong cell as indicated in the RLF report transmitted to a base station a terminal performs cell reselection to in response to a handover failure with a previous base station (i.e., cell) as disclosed in the teachings of LI, because the motivation lies in LI that when the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell based on the RLF information report, the base station sends the RLF information report to the source base station in order for the source base station to adjust the relevant parameters of the traditional handover, thereby optimizing the handover process.
The combination of Wu in view of Cho, and further in view of LI does not explicitly disclose wherein the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448).
Xu discloses wherein the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with a base station (i.e., “cell”) (see Para [0009] i.e., when a UE encounters a RLF or a handover failure, the UE indicates that an RLF report is available when the UE re-enters a connection mode. The network sends a message to the UE to request the RLF report, wherein the RLF report sent by the UE includes…a reason of the connection failure is a RLF or a handover failure (i.e., reason may be included in a “field” of the RLF report)…A base station obtaining the RLF report forwards the RLF report to a base station located where the cell last serving the UE…If the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to a wrong cell (i.e., “reason” such has handover to wrong cell may be indicated in a field of the RLF report)).
(Xu suggests if the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to wrong cell, the base station that receives the RLF report sends information about the too early handover or handing over to wrong cell to a base station that triggered the handover in order for the base station to learn the reason for the connection failure according to the RLF report, (see Para’s [0009] & [0065])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the RLF report transmitted in response to the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu in view of Cho, and further in view of LI to include the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with the base station such as indicating a too early handover or handing over to a wrong cell as disclosed in the teachings of Xu, because the motivation lies in Xu that if the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to wrong cell, the base station that receives the RLF report sends information about the too early handover or handing over to wrong cell to a base station that triggered the handover in order for the base station to learn the reason for the connection failure according to the RLF report.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, the combination of Wu in view of Cho, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 1 and 16, wherein the report includes a flag configured to be set to a true value in response to the connection failure with the first E-UTRAN base station being due to voice fallback (Wu, see Para [0079] i.e., Namely, the RLF report may include an indicator (i.e., “flag”) to indicate whether this handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose (i.e., the indicator indicating whether or not the handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose will inherently include a first value (i.e., “True”) indicating the handover failure was due to voice fallback and another value (i.e., “false”) indicating the handover failure was not due to voice fallback purpose)) and set to a false value in response to the connection failure with the first E-UTRAN base station being not due to voice fallback, (Wu, see Para [0079] i.e., Namely, the RLF report may include an indicator (i.e., “flag”) to indicate whether this handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose (i.e., the indicator indicating whether or not the handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose will inherently include a first value (i.e., “True”) indicating the handover failure was due to voice fallback and another value (i.e., “false”) indicating the handover failure was not due to voice fallback purpose)).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, the combination of Wu in view of Cho, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 1 and 16, wherein the report comprises: a second field corresponding to the fallback indication, (Wu, see Para [0079] i.e., The RLF report may include additional assistant information (i.e., “second field”), which indicates whether voiceFallbackIndication is included in the mobility-FromNRCommand message, [0083] i.e., For example, a voice fallback indication is included in the RLF report & [0138-0139] i.e., RLF report information may include the following assistant information…one indicator indicating that the UE receives a RRC release message including voiceFallbackIndication)
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, the combination of Wu in view of Cho, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 1 and 16, wherein the second wireless communications device is a second E-UTRAN base station or a second NG-RAN base station, (Wu, see Para’s [0030] i.e., NG-RAN base station [0130] i.e., if the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRAN cell after selecting the E-UTRAN cell or if the UE fails to select an E-UTRAN cell, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., “second NG-RAN base station”) & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., “second NG-RAN base station”))
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, the combination of Wu in view of Cho, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 4 and 19, further comprising: searching for the second wireless communications device in response to the connection failure with the first E-UTRAN base station (Wu, see Para’s [0076-0084], [0130-0131] i.e., the UE performs a cell selection procedure. If the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRAN cell after selecting the E-UTRAN cell, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”)…the UE transmits RLF report information to a serving cell of the UE, [0137-0141] i.e., Alternatively, the UE may select a different cell from both the source cell and the selected E-UTRAN cell. When the UE can access the different cell, the UE needs to report the RLF report information, & [0153]), wherein the report includes an indication that a second E-UTRAN base station was not identified by the searching, (Wu, see Para’s [0076] i.e., the UE performs a cell selection procedure…[0081-0084] i.e., the UE may select a NR cell for performing a RRC re-establishment procedure. The UE reports a RLF report to a BS of the selected NR cell. The RLF report may include at least one of the additional assistant information…assistance information which indicates no suitable E-UTRAN cell (i.e., may be an indication for a second E-UTRAN that was not identified during the cell selection procedure) is found for the voice fallback purpose & [0138-0141]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 22, the combination of Wu in view of Cho, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 1 and 16, wherein the fallback indication corresponds to a voice fallback, (Wu, see Para’s [0129] & [0135-0136] i.e., The UE receives a RRC release message including VoiceFallbackIndication from a source cell of the NR BS & [0153] i.e., The RRC release message includes a voice fallback indication)
Regarding Claim 16, Wu discloses a wireless communications device (see Fig. 1 i.e., UE 101 & Fig. 9), comprising: a transceiver (see Fig. 9 i.e., transmitter 904/receiver 902 & Para’s [0159-0160]); and a processor coupled with the transceiver (see Fig. 9 i.e., processor 908 & Para’s [0159-0160]), wherein the wireless communications device (see Fig. 1 i.e., UE 101 & Fig. 9) is configured to: receive a first signal from a first next generation radio access network (NG-RAN) base station, (see Para’s [0030] i.e., BS 102 may include a NG-RAN [0129], [0134-0136] i.e., (1) A NR BS (i.e., “first NG-RAN base station”) decides to move a UE (i.e., “first wireless communication device”) to an E-UTRAN cell for a voice traffic. (2) The UE receives a RRC release message (i.e., “first signal”) including voiceFallbackIndication from a source cell of the NR BS, & [0153])
the first signal including a fallback indication, (see Para’s [0129] & [0136] i.e., The UE receives a RRC release message (i.e., “first signal”) including voiceFallbackIndication from a source cell of the NR BS)
in response to receiving the first signal (see Para’s [0136-0137]), transmitting a second signal to a first evolved-universal mobile telecommunications system terrestrial radio access network (E-UTRAN) base station, (see Para’s [0129-0130] i.e., If the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRAN cell (i.e., “first E-UTRAN base station”) after selecting the E-UTRAN cell, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., connection setup with the E-UTAN cell suggests a connection request which may be a “second signal” is transmitted), [0136-0137] i.e., The UE attempts to select an E-UTRAN cell for accessing, but a failure occurs during the handover procedure to the selected E-UTRAN cell, & [0153])
and transmit a third signal to a second wireless communications device (see Para’s [0130], [0138-0141] i.e., RLF report information, & [0153]), the third signal including a report in response to a connection failure with the first E-UTRAN base station, (see Para’s [0130], [0134-0138] i.e., (3) The UE attempts to select an E-UTRAN cell for accessing but a failure occurs during the handover procedure to the selected E-UTRAN cell. (4) The UE may reselect back to the source cell. Alternatively, the UE may select a different cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”) from both the source cell and the selected E-UTRAN cell. When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”), the UE needs to report the RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”), & [0153-0157] i.e., or the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRA cell after selecting the E-UTRA cell. Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”). The UE may transmit RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”) to a serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”))
While Wu suggests transmitting a second signal such as a connection request by performing a connection setup with the E-UTRAN base station (see Para [0130], [0137], & [0153]), Wu does not explicitly disclose transmitting a second signal by the UE to the E-UTRAN base station, the second signal including a connection request. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Cho et al. US (2014/0146759).
Cho discloses transmitting a second signal by a UE to a E-UTRAN base station when performing a connection setup with the E-UTRAN base station, (see Fig. 3 i.e., send RRC connection request message 304 from UE to E-UTRAN base station & Para’s [0046-0049] i.e., Fig 3 depicts the RRC connection setup in the LTE communication system…When the UE in the idle mode at operation 300 performs the RRC connection to make a call or to respond to the paging message at operation 302 of the E-UTRAN, the UE sends an RRC connection request message (i.e., “second signal”) to the E-UTRAN at operation 304…The E-UTRAN receiving the RRC connection request message from the UE accepts the RRC connection request of the UE at operation 304 when the radio resource is sufficient, and sends the RRC connection setup message being a response message to the UE at operation 306…for setting the RRC connection with the E-UTRAN at operation 310 and enters an RRC connection mode at operation 312).
the second signal including a connection request (see Fig. 3 i.e., RRC connection request message 304 & Para’s [0046-0049])
(Cho suggests the UE transmits the RRC connection request message to the E-UTRAN base station for successfully setting up the RRC connection with the E-UTRAN for performing data communications including a call, (see Fig. 3 & Para’s [0046-0049])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the connection setup performed by the UE with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu to include transmitting a second signal include a connection request such as the RRC connection request message disclosed in the teachings of Cho who discloses a UE transmitting the RRC connection request message to a E-UTRAN base station when performing a connection setup with the E-UTRAN base station, because the motivation lies in Cho that the UE transmits the RRC connection request message to the E-UTRAN base station for successfully setting up the RRC connection with the E-UTRAN for performing data communications including a call.
While Wu discloses the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station (see Para’s [0129-0130] & [0156-0157]), the combination of Wu in view of Cho does not disclose wherein the report indicates a reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175).
LI disclose wherein the RLF report indicates a reason for the connection failure with a base station (i.e., cell) (see Para’s [0089] i.e., In case that the terminal device wrongly executes the handover to a certain cell, after the terminal device leaves the cell quickly, the air interface link quality with the cell deteriorates, and the RLF is declared. At this time, the terminal device has to execute the cell reselection and execute the random access on the new cell & [0090] i.e., After accessing a new cell, the terminal device can report the RLF information…In this way, the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell (i.e., “reason” such has handover to wrong cell), and sends the RLF information report to the source base station)
(Li suggests when the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell based on the RLF information report, the base station sends the RLF information report to the source base station in order for the source base station to adjust the relevant parameters of the traditional handover, thereby optimizing the handover process, (see Para [0090])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the RLF report transmitted in response to the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu in view of Cho to indicate a reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station such as handover to the wrong cell as indicated in the RLF report transmitted to a base station a terminal performs cell reselection to in response to a handover failure with a previous base station (i.e., cell) as disclosed in the teachings of LI, because the motivation lies in LI that when the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell based on the RLF information report, the base station sends the RLF information report to the source base station in order for the source base station to adjust the relevant parameters of the traditional handover, thereby optimizing the handover process.
The combination of Wu in view of Cho, and further in view of LI does not explicitly disclose wherein the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448).
Xu discloses wherein the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with a base station (i.e., “cell”) (see Para [0009] i.e., when a UE encounters a RLF or a handover failure, the UE indicates that an RLF report is available when the UE re-enters a connection mode. The network sends a message to the UE to request the RLF report, wherein the RLF report sent by the UE includes…a reason of the connection failure is a RLF or a handover failure (i.e., reason may be included in a “field” of the RLF report)…A base station obtaining the RLF report forwards the RLF report to a base station located where the cell last serving the UE…If the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to a wrong cell (i.e., “reason” such has handover to wrong cell may be indicated in a field of the RLF report)).
(Xu suggests if the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to wrong cell, the base station that receives the RLF report sends information about the too early handover or handing over to wrong cell to a base station that triggered the handover in order for the base station to learn the reason for the connection failure according to the RLF report, (see Para’s [0009] & [0065])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the RLF report transmitted in response to the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu in view of Cho, and further in view of LI to include the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with the base station such as indicating a too early handover or handing over to a wrong cell as disclosed in the teachings of Xu, because the motivation lies in Xu that if the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to wrong cell, the base station that receives the RLF report sends information about the too early handover or handing over to wrong cell to a base station that triggered the handover in order for the base station to learn the reason for the connection failure according to the RLF report.
Claims 9-13 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU US (2023/0239750) in view of Min et al. US (2023/0107424), in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu discloses a method of wireless communication (see Fig. 1 & Fig. 6 & Para’s [0128] & [0133]), comprising: receiving a first signal by a first wireless communications device from a user equipment (UE), (see Para’s [0003] i.e., when a RLF or handover failure occurs for a UE, the UE may perform a RRC re-establishment procedure. The UE may access a cell by a successful RRC re-establishment procedure, [0130] i.e., if the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRAN cell after selecting the E-UTRAN cell or if the UE fails to select an E-UTRAN cell, the UE selects a NR cell, [0137-0138] i.e., When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell (i.e., accessing the different cell suggests receiving a first signal such as a connection request from the UE by the base station of the different NR cell), the UE needs to report the RLF report information & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell. The UE may transmit RLF report information to serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell (i.e., accessing the NR cell suggests receiving a first signal such as a connection request from the UE by the base station of the NR cell)).
transmitting a second signal by the first wireless communications device to the UE, the second signal including an information request (see Para’s [0003] i.e., when a RLF or handover failure occurs for a UE, the UE may perform a RRC re-establishment procedure. The UE may access a cell by a successful RRC re-establishment procedure. The accessed network will request UE information (i.e., “second signal”) including a RLF report of the UE, such that the network can optimize the mobility problem based on the UE information from the UE. Accordingly, the UE will transmit a failure report to the network, [0130], [0137-0138], & [0153])
and receiving a third signal by the first wireless communications device from the UE (see Para’s [0130], [0138-0141] i.e., the UE needs to report the RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”), & [0153]), the third signal including a report generated in response to a failure to establish a connection between the UE and a second wireless communications device, (see Para’s [0130], [0134-0138] i.e., (3) The UE attempts to select an E-UTRAN cell for accessing but a failure occurs during the handover procedure to the selected E-UTRAN cell. (4) The UE may reselect back to the source cell. Alternatively, the UE may select a different cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”) from both the source cell and the selected E-UTRAN cell. When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”), the UE needs to report the RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”), & [0153-0157] i.e., or the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRA cell after selecting the E-UTRA cell. Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”). The UE may transmit RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”) to a serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”))
the report comprising a fallback indication, (see Para’s [0079] i.e., The RLF report may include additional assistant information, which indicates whether voiceFallbackIndication is included in the mobility-FromNRCommand message)
While Wu suggests receiving a first signal such as a connection request when the UE accesses the NR cell (see Para [0130], [0138], & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell. The UE may transmit RLF report information to serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell (i.e., accessing the NR cell suggests receiving a first signal such as a connection request from the UE by the base station of the NR cell)), Wu does not explicitly disclose the first wireless communication device receiving the first signal from the UE, and the first signal including a connection request. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Min et al. US (2023/0107424).
Min discloses a first wireless communication device receiving a first signal from a UE, (see Fig. 4 i.e., step S11 & Para’s [0037] i.e., gNB 210 of NG-RAN 200 which is the NR base station & [0097-0100] i.e., Fig. 4 is a sequence diagram of the connection procedure in time delivery. As illustrated 4, the terminal 100 in the idle state performs cell selection, and transmits RRC Setup Request (i.e., “first signal”) to the NR network for setup of RRC connection between the terminal 100 and the NR network (S11))
and the first signal including a connection request (see Fig. 4 i.e., step S11 RRC Setup request & Para’s [0097-0100] i.e., Fig. 4 is a sequence diagram of the connection procedure in time delivery. As illustrated 4, the terminal 100 in the idle state performs cell selection, and transmits RRC Setup Request (i.e., “first signal”) to the NR network for setup of RRC connection between the terminal 100 and the NR network (S11)).
(Min suggests when the terminal performs cell selection, the terminal transmits the RRC Setup Request to the NR network for successfully setting up the RRC connection between the terminal and the NR network, (see Fig. 4 & Para’s [0097-0100])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the UE which accesses the selected NR cell as disclosed in Wu to include receiving a first signal from the UE including a connection request such as the RRC setup request as disclosed in the teachings of Min who discloses a terminal transmits the to the NR network a RRC setup request, because the motivation lies in Min that when the terminal performs cell selection, the terminal transmits the RRC Setup Request to the NR network for successfully setting up the RRC connection between the terminal and the NR network.
While Wu discloses the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station (see Para’s [0129-0130] & [0156-0157]), the combination of Wu in view of Min does not disclose wherein the report indicates a reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175).
LI disclose wherein the RLF report indicates a reason for the connection failure with a base station (i.e., cell) (see Para’s [0089] i.e., In case that the terminal device wrongly executes the handover to a certain cell, after the terminal device leaves the cell quickly, the air interface link quality with the cell deteriorates, and the RLF is declared. At this time, the terminal device has to execute the cell reselection and execute the random access on the new cell & [0090] i.e., After accessing a new cell, the terminal device can report the RLF information…In this way, the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell (i.e., “reason” such has handover to wrong cell), and sends the RLF information report to the source base station)
(Li suggests when the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell based on the RLF information report, the base station sends the RLF information report to the source base station in order for the source base station to adjust the relevant parameters of the traditional handover, thereby optimizing the handover process, (see Para [0090])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the RLF report transmitted in response to the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu in view of Min to indicate a reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station such as handover to the wrong cell as indicated in the RLF report transmitted to a base station a terminal performs cell reselection to in response to a handover failure with a previous base station (i.e., cell) as disclosed in the teachings of LI, because the motivation lies in LI that when the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell based on the RLF information report, the base station sends the RLF information report to the source base station in order for the source base station to adjust the relevant parameters of the traditional handover, thereby optimizing the handover process.
The combination of Wu in view of Min, and further in view of LI does not explicitly disclose wherein the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448).
Xu discloses wherein the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with a base station (i.e., “cell”) (see Para [0009] i.e., when a UE encounters a RLF or a handover failure, the UE indicates that an RLF report is available when the UE re-enters a connection mode. The network sends a message to the UE to request the RLF report, wherein the RLF report sent by the UE includes…a reason of the connection failure is a RLF or a handover failure (i.e., reason may be included in a “field” of the RLF report)…A base station obtaining the RLF report forwards the RLF report to a base station located where the cell last serving the UE…If the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to a wrong cell (i.e., “reason” such has handover to wrong cell may be indicated in a field of the RLF report)).
(Xu suggests if the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to wrong cell, the base station that receives the RLF report sends information about the too early handover or handing over to wrong cell to a base station that triggered the handover in order for the base station to learn the reason for the connection failure according to the RLF report, (see Para’s [0009] & [0065])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the RLF report transmitted in response to the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu in view of Min, and further in view of LI to include the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with the base station such as indicating a too early handover or handing over to a wrong cell as disclosed in the teachings of Xu, because the motivation lies in Xu that if the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to wrong cell, the base station that receives the RLF report sends information about the too early handover or handing over to wrong cell to a base station that triggered the handover in order for the base station to learn the reason for the connection failure according to the RLF report.
Regarding Claims 10 and 25, the combination of Wu in view of Min, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 9 and 24, wherein the report includes a flag configured to be set to a true value in response to the failure to establish the connection between the UE and the second wireless communications device being due to voice fallback (Wu, see Para [0079] i.e., Namely, the RLF report may include an indicator (i.e., “flag”) to indicate whether this handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose (i.e., the indicator indicating whether or not the handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose will inherently include a first value (i.e., “True”) indicating the handover failure was due to voice fallback and another value (i.e., “false”) indicating the handover failure was not due to voice fallback purpose)) and set to a false value in response to the failure to establish the connection between the UE and the second wireless communications device not being due to voice fallback, (Wu, see Para [0079] i.e., Namely, the RLF report may include an indicator (i.e., “flag”) to indicate whether this handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose (i.e., the indicator indicating whether or not the handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose will inherently include a first value (i.e., “True”) indicating the handover failure was due to voice fallback and another value (i.e., “false”) indicating the handover failure was not due to voice fallback purpose)).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Wu in view of Min, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the report further comprises: a first field corresponding to a handover report type, wherein the handover report type of the report is set to EPS fallback failure in response to the fallback indication indicating a voice fallback, (Wu, see Para [0062] i.e., If the handover failure (i.e., “EPS fallback failure”) occurs during the handover procedure, the UE may transmit RLF report information. In an embodiment, if the mobility command message includes a voice fallback indication, the RLF report information includes an indicator to indicate that the handover procedure is used for a voice fallback operation, [0079], [0083], [0097], [0101] i.e., For example, a RLF report may include an ID of the target UTRAN cell of the failed handover procedure (i.e., “handover report type”). In an embodiment, a field (i.e., may be the “first field”) is used to indicate an ID of the target UTRAN cell in which a RLF is detected (i.e., “EPS fallback failure”) & [0134-0138] i.e., A NR BS decides to move a UE to an E-UTRAN cell for a voice traffic. The UE receives a RRC release message including voicefallbackindication from a source cell of the NR BS. The UE attempts to select an E-UTRAN cell for accessing, but a failure occurs during the handover procedure to the selected E-UTRAN cell (i.e., “EPS fallback failure”))
And a second field corresponding to the fallback indication, (Wu, see Para [0079] i.e., The RLF report may include additional assistant information (i.e., “second field”), which indicates whether voiceFallbackIndication is included in the mobility-FromNRCommand message, [0083] i.e., For example, a voice fallback indication is included in the RLF report & [0138-0139] i.e., RLF report information may include the following assistant information…one indicator indicating that the UE receives a RRC release message including voiceFallbackIndication)
Regarding Claims 12 and 27, the combination of Wu in view of Min, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 9 and 24, wherein the first wireless communications device is an E-UTRAN base station or a second NG-RAN base station, (Wu, see Para’s [0030] i.e., NG-RAN base station [0130] i.e., if the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRAN cell after selecting the E-UTRAN cell or if the UE fails to select an E-UTRAN cell, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., “second NG-RAN base station”) & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., “second NG-RAN base station”))
Regarding Claims 13 and 28, the combination of Wu in view of Min, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 12 and 24, wherein: the second wireless communications device is a first E-UTRAN base station (Wu, see Para [0137] i.e., The UE attempts to select an E-UTRAN cell for accessing, but a failure occurs during the handover procedure to the selected E-UTRAN cell); the first signal is received in response to the failure to establish the connection between the UE and the second wireless communications device (Wu, see Para’s [0137-0138] & [0153] i.e., the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRA cell after selecting the E-UTRA cell. Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell); and the report includes an indication that a second E-UTRAN base station was not identified by searching, (Wu, see Para’s [0076] i.e., the UE performs a cell selection procedure…[0081-0084] i.e., the UE may select a NR cell for performing a RRC re-establishment procedure. The UE reports a RLF report to a BS of the selected NR cell. The RLF report may include at least one of the additional assistant information…assistance information which indicates no suitable E-UTRAN cell (i.e., may be an indication for a second E-UTRAN that was not identified during the cell selection procedure) is found for the voice fallback purpose & [0138-0141]).
Regarding Claim 24, Wu discloses a wireless communications device (see Fig. 1 i.e., base station 102 & Fig. 9 & Para [0159] i.e., the apparatus 900 may be a BS), comprising: a transceiver (see Fig. 9 i.e., transmitter 904/receiver 902 & Para’s [0159-0160]); and a processor coupled with the transceiver (see Fig. 9 i.e., processor 908 & Para’s [0159-0160]), wherein the wireless communications device (see Fig. 1 i.e., base station 102 & Fig. 9) is configured to: receive a first signal from a user equipment (UE), (see Para’s [0003] i.e., when a RLF or handover failure occurs for a UE, the UE may perform a RRC re-establishment procedure. The UE may access a cell by a successful RRC re-establishment procedure, [0130] i.e., if the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRAN cell after selecting the E-UTRAN cell or if the UE fails to select an E-UTRAN cell, the UE selects a NR cell, [0137-0138] i.e., When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell (i.e., accessing the different cell suggests receiving a first signal such as a connection request from the UE by the base station of the different NR cell), the UE needs to report the RLF report information & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell. The UE may transmit RLF report information to serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell (i.e., accessing the NR cell suggests receiving a first signal such as a connection request from the UE by the base station of the NR cell)).
transmit a second signal to the UE, the second signal including an information request (see Para’s [0003] i.e., when a RLF or handover failure occurs for a UE, the UE may perform a RRC re-establishment procedure. The UE may access a cell by a successful RRC re-establishment procedure. The accessed network will request UE information (i.e., “second signal”) including a RLF report of the UE, such that the network can optimize the mobility problem based on the UE information from the UE. Accordingly, the UE will transmit a failure report to the network, [0130], [0137-0138], & [0153])
and receive a third signal from the UE (see Para’s [0130], [0138-0141] i.e., the UE needs to report the RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”), & [0153]), the third signal including a report generated in response to a failure to establish a connection between the UE and a second wireless communications device, (see Para’s [0130], [0134-0138] i.e., (3) The UE attempts to select an E-UTRAN cell for accessing but a failure occurs during the handover procedure to the selected E-UTRAN cell. (4) The UE may reselect back to the source cell. Alternatively, the UE may select a different cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”) from both the source cell and the selected E-UTRAN cell. When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”), the UE needs to report the RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”), & [0153-0157] i.e., or the UE fails to setup a connection with an E-UTRA cell after selecting the E-UTRA cell. Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”). The UE may transmit RLF report information (i.e., “third signal”) to a serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell (i.e., “second wireless communication device”))
the report comprising a fallback indication, (see Para’s [0079] i.e., The RLF report may include additional assistant information, which indicates whether voiceFallbackIndication is included in the mobility-FromNRCommand message)
While Wu suggests receiving a first signal such as a connection request when the UE accesses the NR cell (see Para [0130], [0138], & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell. The UE may transmit RLF report information to serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell (i.e., accessing the NR cell suggests receiving a first signal such as a connection request from the UE by the base station of the NR cell)), Wu does not explicitly disclose the wireless communication device receiving the first signal from the UE, and the first signal including a connection request. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Min et al. US (2023/0107424).
Min discloses a wireless communication device receiving a first signal from a UE, (see Fig. 4 i.e., step S11 & Para’s [0037] i.e., gNB 210 of NG-RAN 200 which is the NR base station & [0097-0100] i.e., Fig. 4 is a sequence diagram of the connection procedure in time delivery. As illustrated 4, the terminal 100 in the idle state performs cell selection, and transmits RRC Setup Request (i.e., “first signal”) to the NR network for setup of RRC connection between the terminal 100 and the NR network (S11))
and the first signal including a connection request (see Fig. 4 i.e., step S11 RRC Setup request & Para’s [0097-0100] i.e., Fig. 4 is a sequence diagram of the connection procedure in time delivery. As illustrated 4, the terminal 100 in the idle state performs cell selection, and transmits RRC Setup Request (i.e., “first signal”) to the NR network for setup of RRC connection between the terminal 100 and the NR network (S11)).
(Min suggests when the terminal performs cell selection, the terminal transmits the RRC Setup Request to the NR network for successfully setting up the RRC connection between the terminal and the NR network, (see Fig. 4 & Para’s [0097-0100])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the UE which accesses the selected NR cell as disclosed in Wu to include receiving a first signal from the UE including a connection request such as the RRC setup request as disclosed in the teachings of Min who discloses a terminal transmits the to the NR network a RRC setup request, because the motivation lies in Min that when the terminal performs cell selection, the terminal transmits the RRC Setup Request to the NR network for successfully setting up the RRC connection between the terminal and the NR network.
While Wu discloses the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station (see Para’s [0129-0130] & [0156-0157]), the combination of Wu in view of Min does not disclose wherein the report indicates a reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175).
LI disclose wherein the RLF report indicates a reason for the connection failure with a base station (i.e., cell) (see Para’s [0089] i.e., In case that the terminal device wrongly executes the handover to a certain cell, after the terminal device leaves the cell quickly, the air interface link quality with the cell deteriorates, and the RLF is declared. At this time, the terminal device has to execute the cell reselection and execute the random access on the new cell & [0090] i.e., After accessing a new cell, the terminal device can report the RLF information…In this way, the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell (i.e., “reason” such has handover to wrong cell), and sends the RLF information report to the source base station)
(Li suggests when the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell based on the RLF information report, the base station sends the RLF information report to the source base station in order for the source base station to adjust the relevant parameters of the traditional handover, thereby optimizing the handover process, (see Para [0090])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the RLF report transmitted in response to the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu in view of Min to indicate a reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station such as handover to the wrong cell as indicated in the RLF report transmitted to a base station a terminal performs cell reselection to in response to a handover failure with a previous base station (i.e., cell) as disclosed in the teachings of LI, because the motivation lies in LI that when the base station to which the terminal device finally accesses can infer that the terminal device experiences a handover to the wrong cell based on the RLF information report, the base station sends the RLF information report to the source base station in order for the source base station to adjust the relevant parameters of the traditional handover, thereby optimizing the handover process.
The combination of Wu in view of Min, and further in view of LI does not explicitly disclose wherein the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448).
Xu discloses wherein the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with a base station (i.e., “cell”) (see Para [0009] i.e., when a UE encounters a RLF or a handover failure, the UE indicates that an RLF report is available when the UE re-enters a connection mode. The network sends a message to the UE to request the RLF report, wherein the RLF report sent by the UE includes…a reason of the connection failure is a RLF or a handover failure (i.e., reason may be included in a “field” of the RLF report)…A base station obtaining the RLF report forwards the RLF report to a base station located where the cell last serving the UE…If the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to a wrong cell (i.e., “reason” such has handover to wrong cell may be indicated in a field of the RLF report)).
(Xu suggests if the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to wrong cell, the base station that receives the RLF report sends information about the too early handover or handing over to wrong cell to a base station that triggered the handover in order for the base station to learn the reason for the connection failure according to the RLF report, (see Para’s [0009] & [0065])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the RLF report transmitted in response to the connection failure with the E-UTRAN base station as disclosed in Wu in view of Min, and further in view of LI to include the RLF report comprises a first field indicating the reason for the connection failure with the base station such as indicating a too early handover or handing over to a wrong cell as disclosed in the teachings of Xu, because the motivation lies in Xu that if the RLF report indicates a too early handover or handing over to wrong cell, the base station that receives the RLF report sends information about the too early handover or handing over to wrong cell to a base station that triggered the handover in order for the base station to learn the reason for the connection failure according to the RLF report.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Wu in view of Min, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the wireless communications device of claim 24, wherein the report further comprises: a second field corresponding to the fallback indication, (Wu, see Para [0079] i.e., The RLF report may include additional assistant information (i.e., “second field”), which indicates whether voiceFallbackIndication is included in the mobility-FromNRCommand message, [0083] i.e., For example, a voice fallback indication is included in the RLF report & [0138-0139] i.e., RLF report information may include the following assistant information…one indicator indicating that the UE receives a RRC release message including voiceFallbackIndication)
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU US (2023/0239750) in view of Cho et al. US (2014/0146759), further in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Kai et al. US (2022/0303923).
Regarding Claims 6 and 21, the combination of Wu in view of Cho, in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 1 and 16, wherein: the first wireless communications device is in an active state (Wu, see Para’s [0130], [0138] i.e., When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell (i.e., accessing the different cell suggests “active state”), the UE needs to report the RLF report information & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell. The UE may transmit RLF report information to serving cell after the UE accesses (i.e., accessing the NR cell suggests “active state”) the selected NR cell), and the report is a radio link failure (RLF) report, (Wu, see Para’s [0130], [0138] i.e., When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell, the UE needs to report the RLF report information & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell. The UE may transmit RLF report information to serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell), but do not explicitly disclose the claim feature of the first wireless communications device is in an active state. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Kai et al. US (2022/0303923).
Kai discloses a first wireless communications device is in an active state when it needs to communicate data to a an NG-RAN node (see Fig. 2 & Para’s [0038-0039] & [0054], [0056-0058] & [0060]).
(Kai suggests when it becomes necessary for the terminal in the inactive state to communicate user data, the terminal needs to transition from the inactive state to the active state in order to transmit and receive user data to and from the NR network (see Para’s [0058] & [0060] i.e., When terminal 100 is in the active state, the NR network can identify the terminal 100 at the cell level subordinate to the NG-RAN node. Therefore, the terminal 100 can transmit and receive user data to and from the NR network)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the UE which transmits the RLF report when accessing the NR cell as disclosed in Wu in view of Cho, in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses to be in an active state when communicating the RLF report to the NR cell based on the teachings of Kai who discloses a first wireless communications device such as a UE is in an active state when it needs to communicate data to a an NG-RAN node, because the motivation lies in Kai that when it becomes necessary for the terminal in the inactive state to communicate user data, the terminal needs to transition from the inactive state to the active state in order to transmit and receive user data to and from the NR network.
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU US (2023/0239750) in view of Cho et al. US (2014/0146759), further in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Won US (2021/0321356).
Regarding Claims 8 and 23, the combination of Wu in view of Cho, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 1 and 16, including indicating whether the handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose (Wu, see Para [0079]), but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the fallback indication corresponds to an emergency fallback. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Won US (2021/0321356).
Won discloses wherein a fallback procedure corresponds to an emergency fallback (see Fig. 5 i.e., steps 515-517 & Para’s [0074] i.e., a registration request is sent from the UE 102, by way of RAN 104, to the AMF 108, as 514 which includes an indication of the emergency service fallback type that is requested…If accepted by the AMF, AMF 108 will send a request for the emergency services fallback type to the RAN 104 in order to authorize the RAN to support and conduct the emergency session on behalf of the UE 102, as 515 illustrates…In an embodiment in which the UE 102 determines that a handover procedure is required, such as to support the emergency session, the UE 102 can initiate the handover procedure in accordance with an Inter RAT handover or a RRC redirection to a 5GC-connected E-UTRA handover (i.e., redirection to a 5GC-connected E-UTRA handover includes receiving an instruction or fallback indication from the 5G network for the emergency fallback procedure), see block 516a…In other embodiments, the signal flow 510 requires a handover procedure as described by blocks 516a and 516b before proceeding to establishing the emergency session in block 517).
(Won suggests a handover procedure is performed by the UE based on determining that currently connected 5G network access node is losing signal strength in order to switch to another network access node of comparatively better or improving signal strength for supporting and establishing the emergency session, (see Fig. 5 i.e., steps 515-517 & Para’s [0074])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the handover procedure performed by the UE according to the received fallback indication as disclosed in in view of Cho, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu to be for an emergency fallback based on the teachings of Won who discloses wherein a fallback procedure configured for the UE by the network corresponds to an emergency fallback, because the motivation lies in Won that a handover procedure is performed by the UE based on determining that currently connected 5G network access node is losing signal strength in order to switch to another network access node of comparatively better or improving signal strength for supporting and establishing the emergency session.
Claims 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU US (2023/0239750) in view of Min et al. US (2023/0107424), further in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448) as applied to claims 9 and 24 above, and further in view of Kai et al. US (2022/0303923).
Regarding Claims 14 and 29, the combination of Wu in view of Min, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 9 and 24, wherein: the first wireless communications device is in an active state (Wu, see Para’s [0130], [0138] i.e., When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell (i.e., accessing the different cell suggests “active state”), the UE needs to report the RLF report information & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell. The UE may transmit RLF report information to serving cell after the UE accesses (i.e., accessing the NR cell suggests “active state”) the selected NR cell), and the report is a radio link failure (RLF) report, (Wu, see Para’s [0130], [0138] i.e., When the UE can access the source cell or the different cell, the UE needs to report the RLF report information & [0153] i.e., Then, under these cases, the UE selects a NR cell. The UE may transmit RLF report information to serving cell after the UE accesses the selected NR cell), but do not explicitly disclose the claim feature of the first wireless communications device is in an active state. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Kai et al. US (2022/0303923).
Kai discloses a first wireless communications device is in an active state when it needs to communicate data to a an NG-RAN node (see Fig. 2 & Para’s [0038-0039] & [0054], [0056-0058] & [0060]).
(Kai suggests when it becomes necessary for the terminal in the inactive state to communicate user data, the terminal needs to transition from the inactive state to the active state in order to transmit and receive user data to and from the NR network (see Para’s [0058] & [0060] i.e., When terminal 100 is in the active state, the NR network can identify the terminal 100 at the cell level subordinate to the NG-RAN node. Therefore, the terminal 100 can transmit and receive user data to and from the NR network)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the UE which transmits the RLF report when accessing the NR cell as disclosed in Wu in view of Min, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu to be in an active state when communicating the RLF report to the NR cell based on the teachings of Kai who discloses a first wireless communications device such as a UE is in an active state when it needs to communicate data to a an NG-RAN node, because the motivation lies in Kai that when it becomes necessary for the terminal in the inactive state to communicate user data, the terminal needs to transition from the inactive state to the active state in order to transmit and receive user data to and from the NR network.
Claims 15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU US (2023/0239750) in view of Min et al. US (2023/0107424), further in view of LI et al. US (2022/0369175), and further in view of Xu et al. US (2015/0098448) as applied to claims 9 and 24 above, and further in view of Won US (2021/0321356).
Regarding Claims 15 and 30, the combination of Wu in view of Min, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu discloses the method and wireless communications device of claims 9 and 24, including indicating whether the handover procedure is performed for a voice fallback purpose (Wu, see Para [0079]), but does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the fallback indication corresponds to an emergency fallback. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Won US (2021/0321356).
Won discloses wherein a fallback procedure corresponds to an emergency fallback (see Fig. 5 i.e., steps 515-517 & Para’s [0074] i.e., a registration request is sent from the UE 102, by way of RAN 104, to the AMF 108, as 514 which includes an indication of the emergency service fallback type that is requested…If accepted by the AMF, AMF 108 will send a request for the emergency services fallback type to the RAN 104 in order to authorize the RAN to support and conduct the emergency session on behalf of the UE 102, as 515 illustrates…In an embodiment in which the UE 102 determines that a handover procedure is required, such as to support the emergency session, the UE 102 can initiate the handover procedure in accordance with an Inter RAT handover or a RRC redirection to a 5GC-connected E-UTRA handover (i.e., redirection to a 5GC-connected E-UTRA handover includes receiving an instruction or fallback indication from the 5G network for the emergency fallback procedure), see block 516a…In other embodiments, the signal flow 510 requires a handover procedure as described by blocks 516a and 516b before proceeding to establishing the emergency session in block 517).
(Won suggests a handover procedure is performed by the UE based on determining that currently connected 5G network access node is losing signal strength in order to switch to another network access node of comparatively better or improving signal strength for supporting and establishing the emergency session, (see Fig. 5 i.e., steps 515-517 & Para’s [0074])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the handover procedure performed by the UE according to the received fallback indication as disclosed in Wu in view of Min, further in view of LI, and further in view of Xu to be for an emergency fallback based on the teachings of Won who discloses wherein a fallback procedure configured for the UE by the network corresponds to an emergency fallback, because the motivation lies in Won that a handover procedure is performed by the UE based on determining that currently connected 5G network access node is losing signal strength in order to switch to another network access node of comparatively better or improving signal strength for supporting and establishing the emergency session.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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