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 Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 01/06/2026 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Claims 1-3, 9, 14, 16-29 are amended. Claims 15 and 30 are cancelled. Objection to Claim 23 is withdrawn. The non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 14, and 16 based on claims 14, 27, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,265 in view of YAN infra is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 01/16/2026 (hereinafter Resp.) are fully considered hereinafter.
Applicant’s main argument is that Yan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0193760 (hereinafter YAN) does not disclose or suggest “communicating, based on the indication, with the second network node, a successful PScell change (SPC) configuration,” because “YAN [only] describes transmitting a RRC reconfiguration to a UE include configurations related to trigger conditions for the UE” – See Resp., 15:¶1. However, the argument does not clearly point out how the “communicating” limitation distinguishes the present claimed invention from YAN’s disclosure. To be sure, the present Specification does not impart a special definition to the “communicating” limitation, but only that “the BSs 105 may communicate, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through core network), with each other over backhaul links (e.g., X1, X2, etc.), which may be wired or wireless communication links” – See, e.g., [¶0060]. This is no different from YAN’s disclosure that “the MN transmits the 1st information to a source SN which manages the source PSCell, e.g., via a X2 or Xn message, and/or MN transmits the 1st information to a target SN which manages the target PSCell, e.g., via a X2 or Xn message,” – See [¶0123] e.g., the “MN 402 transmits a SN addition request message to target SN 404 or a candidate target SN 404 which manages a candidate PSCell” and “target SN 404 or a candidate target SN 404 which manages a candidate PSCell transmits a SN addition request acknowledge message to MN 402” whereby “the SN addition request acknowledge message includes configuration(s) relating to a trigger condition for UE 401 for logging, generating, and/or storing information associated with a successful completion of a PSCell change procedure or a CPAC procedure (e.g., SPC related information (e.g., successPSCellChange-Config)),” – See [¶0223-25] i.e., the MN and the SN “communicate” based on the indication of a SPC from the MN in order to agree on the SPC configuration that should be sent to the UE. Specifically, Fig. 15 of the present disclosure, showing the SPC method flowchart, is silent about “communicating” between the two nodes involved in the SPC configuration procedure. The pertinent paragraphs of the Specification describing Fig. 15 state that “transmitting the indication may comprise transmitting a Xn message including or carrying the indication. In some aspects, transmitting the indication of the SPC comprises transmitting at least one of a SN change required message, a SN addition request, a SN addition request acknowledgement, a SN release request, and/or a SN release request acknowledgement,” – See [¶0247] whereby “the transmitting the SPC configuration may comprise transmitting the SPC configuration, or at least a portion of a SPC configuration, from a SN to a MN via a Xn message,” – See [¶0248] i.e., nothing substantially more that YAN’s disclosure cited above.
Therefore, the argument that the amendment to independent claims distinguishes over YAN is unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that YAN does not disclose or suggest “a user equipment(UE) ... transmitting, to the network node after the transmitting the SCG report, a further SCG failure report indicating additional SCG failure-related information” as now recited in amended Claim 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. First, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the second reference, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #111, R3-210676, Agenda Item: 10.2.1.6, Source: Ericsson, February 2021, clearly discloses a new SCGFailureInformation “mandatory report to be sent from the UE right upon SCG failure in DC scenarios” – See §2.1, at page 1 (emphasis added), further describing the type of information comprised in the new SCGFailureInformation. Second, the previous Office action, at page 30, cites to YAN [¶0080] stating that “the UE generates information associated with a SCG failure (which is named as ‘2nd information’ for simplicity)”; see also [¶0249-50] (stating with reference to cited Fig. 4, at step 416, that “in a case that a SCG failure occurs, UE 401 logs, generates, or stores information associated with a SCG failure” that may “include an indication in the SCG failure information, to indicate that the latest SPC-report if any ( e.g., in Step 415) is associated with the same PSCell change” and “[i]n Step 417, UE 401 transmits the 2nd information (e.g., SCG failure information) to MN 402”). For these reasons, the argument for withdrawing the rejection of claims 14, 15, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on YAN and 3GPP fails to persuade.
In addition, the aforementioned arguments are also moot in view of new ground of rejection due to amendment.
Claim Objections
Amended Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: "communciate the SPC report" should be "communicate the SPC report". Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should Amended claims 2 and 17 be found allowable, Amended claims 3 and 18, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, Amended Claim 2 depends from Amended Claim 1 already comprising the limitation required by Amended Claim 3. Similar reasoning applies to Amended Claims 16-18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Amended Claim 2 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Amended Claim 2, it requires now “communicating the SPC configuration comprises transmitting the SPC configuration to the second network node.” However, the present disclosure does not describe a case where SPC is initiated by the MN and the MN transmits the SPC configuration, e.g., the SPC-Config IE, to the second network node, but rather that the SN sends at least part of the SPC configuration to the MN – See [¶0120], [¶0136], [¶0155], [¶0173], [¶0201], [¶0248](indicating “transmitting the SPC configuration, or at least a portion of a SPC configuration, from a SN to a MN via a Xn message” and not from the MN to the SN).
Therefore, Amended Claim 2 and its dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) for insufficient written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Amended Claims 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Amended Claim 14, it now recites the limitation "after the transmitting the SCG report" but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the preceding claim language recites “a secondary cell group (SCG) failure report.” Furthermore, in the context of the claimed invention, it is unclear what type is the recited “SCG report,” whether it is a failure report, a measurement report or a SPC report. Regarding the same claim, the term “satisfied condition” as required by the limitation “further SCG failure report indicating additional SCG failure-related information” is unclear to one of ordinary skills in the art because: (1) the Specification does not explain the meaning of “satisfied condition” comprised in the SCG failure-related information – See, e.g., [¶0271] and [¶0291]; and (2) it is ordinary and customary in the art that conditions that are satisfied are not reported in a failure report concerned mostly with the failed/unsatisfied conditions. Amended Claim 29 suffers the same deficiencies.
Therefore, Amended Claims 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, 16-22, 24-26, and 28, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as anticipated by Yan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0193760 (hereinafter Yan) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #116-e, R3-223789, Agenda Item: 9.1.3.1, Title: "Summary of Offline Discussion on MRDC2_CPAC" Source: Qualcomm Incorporated (moderator), May 2022, (hereinafter 3GPP R3-223789) and documents referenced therein1.
Note: When a property or function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Here, Applicant changed the independent claims language from “transmitting, based on the indication . . . a successful PScell change (SPC) configuration” to “communicating, based on the indication . . . a successful PScell change (SPC) configuration,” therefore an interpretation of the language now requires the successful PScell change (SPC) configuration to the UE to be communicated to the second node, a feature disclosed only in the secondary reference(s).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Yan teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a first network node (“the present application provides a method performed by a master node (MN)” – See [¶0030], e.g., “a MN initiated SN or PSCell change procedure” – See [¶0064] and Fig. 4, whereby the MN “may be associated with a master cell group (MCG)” – See [¶0059]), wherein the method comprises:
transmitting, to a second network node, an indication of a primary secondary cell group cell (PScell) change associated with a user equipment (UE) (as shown in Fig. 4, at step 411, the “MN 402 transmits a SN addition request message to target SN 404 or a candidate target SN 404 which manages a candidate PSCell,” i.e., the indication/first information – See [¶0223], whereby the target SN “may be associated with a secondary cell group (SCG)” that “include[s] a primary secondary cell (PSCell)” – See [¶0061], and “the MN receives an indication for indicating an optional capability for generating the 1st information from the UE,” – See [¶0167] and the “1st information includes at least one of: cell information of the source PSCell, cell information of the target PSCell” – See [¶0125]);
communicating, based on the indication, with the second network node, a successful PScell change (SPC) configuration (first, “the MN transmits the 1st information to a source SN which manages the source PSCell, e.g., via a X2 or Xn message, and/or MN transmits the 1st information to a target SN which manages the target PSCell, e.g., via a X2 or Xn message,” – See [¶0123] then, as shown in Fig. 4, at “Step 412: target SN 404 or a candidate target SN 404 which manages a candidate PSCell transmits a SN addition request acknowledge message to MN 402” – See [¶0224], and “the SN addition request acknowledge message includes configuration(s) relating to a trigger condition for UE 401 for logging, generating, and/or storing information associated with a successful completion of a PSCell change procedure or a CPAC procedure (e.g., SPC related information ( e.g., successPSCellChange-Config)” – See [¶0225], i.e., the MN and the SN “communicate”2 regarding an SPC configuration based on the indication/first information)
wherein the SPC configuration is based at least in part on one or more trigger thresholds for one or more timers associated with a Master Cell Group (MCG), a Secondary Cell Group (SCG), or both (“configuration(s) for a UE to report the successful PSCell change (e.g., successPSCellChange-Config IE) is sent from the network, e.g., the network sends configuration(s) associated with trigger condition(s) for SPC-report to the UE” wherein “trigger condition can include at least one of the following:” – See [¶0066] (1) “elapsed running time of timer T310 and/or T312 for source SCG is longer than a configured threshold;” – See [¶0067] (2) “elapsed running time of timer T310 and/or T312 for source MCG is longer than a configured threshold;” – See [¶0068]; (3) “elapsed running time of timer T310 and/or T312 for target SCG is longer than a configured threshold;” – See [¶0069]; or (4) “elapsed running time of timer T304 is longer than a configured threshold;” – See [¶0070] whereby configured timers T310/T312 are “related to a measurement frequency or a measurement identity or a measurement object of any cell” – See [¶0098] as defined by the 3GPP standards – See, e.g., §7.1.1, 3GPP TS 38.331 V17.1.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331), as listed in the table at page 1137-1145, explaining the start/stop/expiry conditions for T304/T310/T312); and
receiving a SPC report, wherein the SPC report is based on the SPC configuration and SPC information associated with the UE (the “UE 401 logs, generates or stores information associated with a successful completion of a PSCell change procedure” and “sends the information associated with a successful completion of a PSCell change procedure . . . to the network, e.g., a MN” – See [¶0236]). Therefore, Claim 1 is anticipated by Yan.
In the alternative that the “communicating, based on the indication, with the second network node, a successful PScell change (SPC) configuration” limitation requires the MN to confirm to the SN the successful RRC (re)configuration of the UE for PScell change, e.g., as shown in Fig. 5 of the present application and emphasized above, then Yan does not fully describe the limitation. However, § 4.5 3GPP R3-223789 references several member companies proposals and amendments to 3GPP TS 38.401 V17.1.1 (2022-07), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NG-RAN; Architecture description (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.401) and 3GPP TS 37.340 V17.1.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and NR; Multi-connectivity; Stage 2 (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 37.340) disclosing in detail the MN-SN communication for conditional PSCell change procedure.
Specifically, R3-223136, Title: "(CR for 38.401) Correction on support of CPAC," Source: China Telecom (hereinafter 3GPP R3-223136) introduces the new § 8.4.1.2 “Conditional PSCell Addition Procedure” in 3GPP TS 38.401 that describes, in Figure 8.4.1.2-1 the communication between a MN and a candidate SN regarding a PSCell change (shown in a split gNB architecture) wherein the communication regarding the PSCell change indication comprises, in addition to the exchange SN Addition request/SN Addition request acknowledgement containing the PScell change configuration: (1) communicating, to the SN with terminated bearers using MCG resources, the Xn-U Address for the Xn-U DL tunnel information for potential recovery of data sent to the UE from the last serving gNB, i.e., the MN; and (2) the confirmation to the SN that the UE was successfully configured for PScell change after the UE responds to the MN.
Section 4.5, 3GPP R3-223789 also references changes to 3GPP TS 37.340, e.g., R3-223114, Title: “Completion of the CPC description to TS37.340,” Source: ZTE, Lenovo, CATT (hereinafter 3GPP R3-223114) wherein the procedures for MN initiated conditional SN Change comprise further communication between the MN and the SN – See, e.g., § 10.5.2, at page 8, stating, at step 4a, “the MN informs the SN that the CPC has been triggered via Xn-U Address Indication procedure, the source SN, if applicable, together with the Early Status Transfer procedure, starts early data forwarding. The PDCP PDU and/or PDCP SDU forwarding may take place during early data forwarding. The Xn-U Address Indication procedure may further be invoked to indicate to the source SN to stop already initiated early data forwarding for some PDCP PDU and/or PDCP SDU if they are no longer subject to data forwarding due to the modification of the prepared conditional PSCell change.”
Thus, Yan and 3GPP R3-223789 each teaches PSCell Change initiated by a MN toward a SN on behalf of a UE in dual connectivity. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the changes to 3GPP TS 38.401 and 3GPP TS 37.340 related to PSCell addition and/or change listed in 3GPP R3-223789 can be combined with the wireless system taught in Yan because both systems support MN/MCG initiated CPAC procedures in EN-DC and MR-DC configurations. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of aligning with the Rel-17 standard support for combining PSCell change initiated by MN, as further described in the amendments referenced by 3GPP R3-223789.
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, obvious over Yan in view of R3-223789.
Regarding Amended Claim 2, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Yan further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the first network node comprises a master node; the second network node comprises a target secondary node (SN) (e.g., as shown in Fig. 4, “UE 401, MN 402 and source SN 403 may function as UE 101, MN 102, and SN 103 as shown in FIG. 1, respectively” “[t]arget SN 404 may be a target SN” – See [¶0218]);
the transmitting the indication of the PScell change to the second network node comprises transmitting a SN addition request to the target SN (“MN 402 transmits a SN addition request message to target SN 404 or a candidate target SN 404 which manages a candidate PSCell” – See [¶0223]); and
the communicating the SPC configuration comprises transmitting the SPC configuration to the second network node and the UE (“MN 402 transmits an RRC reconfiguration
message to UE 401” comprising “successPSCellChangeConfig,” e.g., “the RRC reconfiguration message also includes configuration(s) for a PSCell change or a CPAC” – See [¶¶0233-35]).
Although Yan does not explicitly disclose an MN transmitting the SPC configuration to the SN, §4.5, 3GPP R3-223789 references R3-223114 wherein, e.g., in MR-DC with 5GC configuration described in §10.5.2, at page 8, it is specified that at the beginning of the MN initiated SN change procedure “[t]he MN also provides the candidate cells recommended by MN via the latest measurement results for the SN to choose and configure the SCG cell(s), provides the upper limit for the number of PSCells. Within the list of cells as indicated within the measurement results indicated by the MN, the SN decides the list of PSCell(s) to prepare” i.e., the MN transmits the SPC configuration to the SN to select from based on the received measurements from the UE. Because the combination of the amendments to Rel-17 3GPP specifications related to SPC and/or CPAC with Yan is obvious motivated by standards evolution, Amended Claim 2 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Amended Claim 3, dependent from Amended Claim 2, Yan further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein:
the SPC configuration indicates one or more trigger thresholds for one or more timers associated with a MCG, a SCG, or both (when “the network sends configuration(s) associated with trigger condition(s) for SPC-report to the UE,” the “UE needs to log/generate/store/record successful PSCell change related parameters . . . when one or more trigger condition(s) is satisfied” including “elapsed running time of timer T310 and/or T312 for source SCG is longer than a configured threshold” and “elapsed running time of timer T310 and/or T312 for source MCG is longer than a configured threshold” – See [¶¶0066-68], whereby the “MN 102 may be associated with a master cell group (MCG). The MCG may refer to a group of serving cells associated with MN 102, and may include a primary cell (PCell) and optionally one or more secondary cells (SCells) of the MCG” – See [¶0059], and “SN 103 may be associated with a secondary cell group (SCG). The SCG may refer to a group of serving cells associated with SN 103, and may include a primary secondary cell (PSCell) and optionally one or more secondary cells (SCells) of the SCG” – See [¶0061]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 3 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Claim 4, dependent from Amended Claim 2, Yan further teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: performing a network optimization based on the SPC report (“the network performs MRO [Mobility Robustness Optimization3] analysis . . . based on the SPC-report” and “the network may adopt different PSCell change or CPAC parameters for optimization” – See [¶0208]).
Therefore, Claim 4 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Claim 5, dependent from Claim 4, Yan further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the performing the network optimization comprises updating a timer threshold associated with radio link monitoring (RLM) or Beam failure detection (BFD) (“For successful PSCell change report reporting, configuration( s) for a UE to report the successful PSCell change (e.g., successPSCellChange-Config IE) is sent from the network, e.g., the network sends configuration(s) associated with trigger condition(s) for SPC-report to the UE” including: “radio problem(s) in a target[/source] PSCell, e.g., elapsed running time of timer T310 and/or T312 for source/target SCG [or source MCG] is longer than a configured threshold” and “beam failure(s) is detected in source MCG, source SCG, and/or target SCG” – See [¶¶0066-71], i.e., RLM and BFD are configured to the UE, and the SPC-report contains information “in response to fulfilling a trigger condition, (which is named as ‘1st information’ for simplicity)”; in addition, a “SCG failure information procedure is to inform E-UTRAN or NR MN about a SCG failure the UE has experienced, i.e., a SCG radio link failure” whereby “[f]ailure type, measurement result(s) in MCG, and/or measurement result(s) in SCG can be included in a SCG failure information message” – See [¶0073], i.e., “the UE generates information associated with a SCG failure (which is named as ‘2nd information’ for simplicity), and transmits the 2nd information to the MN,” e.g., “the UE transmits SCG failure information to the MN when a SCG failure happens shortly after the successful PSCell change or CPAC, via the SCG failure information message, after transmitting the SPC report” – See [¶0080], then “MN performs a MRO function, e.g., analysis of SCG failure(s) and/or modification(s) for PSCell change or CPAC related configuration(s)” – See [¶0216], whereby “[o]ne of the functions of Mobility Robustness Optimization is to detect connection failures that occur due to Too Early or Too Late Handovers” based on based on whether “an RLF occurs after the UE has stayed for a long period of time in the cell” or “an RLF occurs shortly after a successful handover from a source cell to a target cell or a handover failure occurs during the handover procedure” whereby, e.g., for “Too Late Handover: there is no recent handover for the UE prior to the connection failure e.g. the UE reported timer is absent or larger than the configured threshold (e.g. Tstore_UE_cntxt)” – See § 15.5.2.2, 3GPP TS 38.300:127; see also [¶0208] (“If the network performs MRO analysis . . . it may be a too late PSCell change”) and [¶0265] (“upon receiving the SPC-report, MN 402 starts a timer (e.g., timer duration may equal to Tstore_UE_cntxt)” until a SCG failure information message is received); because 1st information and 2nd information contain absolute time when the each information is generated (the “1st absolute time” and the “3rd absolute time,” respectively), as well as the “absolute time when an RRC message for the PSCell change procedure is received by the UE (e.g., 2nd absolute time)” and “a time duration from the 2nd absolute time to the 3rd absolute time,” i.e., the time between when the last PSCell change was received (or last SPC executed) and the time of RL failure, the MRO analysis would update the timer threshold Tstore_UE_cntxt4 accordingly so that most of SPCs are neither “too early” nor “too late.”
Therefore, Claim 5 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Claim 6, dependent from Claim 4, Yan further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the performing the network optimization comprises detecting near failure scenarios during a SPC or a successful handover (“A successful PSCell change report (e.g., SPC-report) would be introduced in the future 3GPP Release5, to optimize PSCell change or CPAC related parameters, e.g., if a physical layer issue is detected by the UE during an ongoing PSCell change” and “[b]ased on the network configuration, a UE needs to log/generate/store/record successful PSCell change related parameters” triggered when “radio problem(s) in a source[/target] PSCell, e.g., elapsed running time of timer T310 [or T312] . . . for source SCG [or source MCG] is longer than a configured threshold” or “elapsed running time of timer T304 is longer than a configured threshold” – See [¶¶0066-71], wherein T3xx timers and associated counters are defined in 3GPP TS 38.331, as explained in Amended Claim 1, supra – See §§ 7.1, 7.2, 3GPP TS 38.331 (stating, at page 1141, that T312 starts while T310 is running either in the MSC or in the SCG when “useT312 has been set to true and “T310 in PCell is running”); then “in response to fulfilling a trigger condition,” e.g., the configured value of the timer T312 for the source PSCell/MSG, “configured while the UE was connected to the source PSCell before executing the last PSCell change,” is longer than the preconfigured threshold, “a UE generates, logs, and/or stores information associated with a successful completion of a PSCell change procedure or a CPAC procedure (which is named as ‘1st information’ for simplicity)” whereby “the UE transmits SPC-report to the MN in operation 202 when a PSCell change . . . is successful, e.g., via the UE information response message” – See [¶0079], [¶0098] and Fig. 2; therefore, the MN receiving the SPC-report with the 1st information may compare the T310 value at the time when the T312 value triggered the SPC-report (because T310 was running at that time) with a threshold and/or maximum value and determine how close to expiry was the value of T310 at that time, i.e., whether a near failure scenario6 occurred, wherein t310-Expiry means “failure” – See 3GPP TS 38.331:352-354 (describing the MCGFailureInformation used to provide information regarding NR MCG failures detected by the UE).
Therefore, Claim 6 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Claim 7, dependent from Claim 4, Yan further teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising:
receiving, from the UE, a secondary cell group (SCG) failure report, wherein the receiving the SPC report comprises receiving the SPC report from the UE (“a SCG failure information procedure is to inform E-UTRAN or NR MN about a SCG failure the UE has experienced, i.e., a SCG radio link failure, a failure of SCG reconfiguration with sync, a SCG configuration failure for an RRC message on signalling radio bearer (SRB) 3, a SCG integrity check failure” including “previous PSCell ID (i.e., PCI); failed PSCell ID (i.e., PCI); time SCG failure; RA-Information; and/or failure type” – See [¶0072] and “the UE transmits SCG failure information to the MN when a SCG failure happens shortly after the successful PSCell change or CPAC, via the SCG failure information message, after transmitting the SPC-report” containing “information associated with a SCG failure (which is named as ‘2nd information’ for simplicity)” – See [¶0080]), and
wherein the performing the network optimization is based on a correlation of the SCG failure report with the SPC report (“after a MN receives SPC-report, the MN starts a timer. If the SCG failure information is received before an expiry of the timer, the MN can understand that the SPC-report and the SCG failure information are correlated” – See [¶0077] whereby “[i]t is necessary for the network to know this correlation information, in order to make MRO analysis properly or avoid a wrong SCG failure type,” i.e., avoid scenarios where “it may be a too late PSCell change, e.g., the type of SCG failure is too late PSCell change” and “[i]f the network performs MRO analysis based on related SPC-report and SCG failure information, it may be a PSCell change to a wrong cell, e.g., the type of SCG failure is PSCell change to a wrong cell. Based on different SCG failure types, the network may adopt different PSCell change or CPAC parameters for optimization.” – See [¶0208]).
Therefore, Claim 7 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Amended Claim 9, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Yan further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the first network node comprises a secondary node (SN) (“the wireless communication system 100 may be a dual connectivity system 100, including at least one UE 101, at least one MN 102, and at least one SN 103” – See [¶0056] and FIG. 1; whereby “UE 102 may be configured to utilize resources provided by MN 102 and SN 103 to perform data transmission” – See [¶0057]; and “in the EN-DC scenario, SN 103 may be an en-gNB . . .in the NE-DC scenario, SN 103 may be a ng-eNB . . . in the NR-DC scenario or the NGEN-DC scenario, SN 103 may be a gNB” – See [¶0060]);
the transmitting the indication of the PScell change to the second network node comprises transmitting a SN change request to a master node (“source SN performs a MRO function, e.g., analysis of SCG failure (s) and/or modification(s) for PSCell change or CPAC related configuration(s) source SN 503 transmits a SN change required message to MN 502” – See [¶0280] and Fig. 5, wherein, “source SN 503 transmits a SN change required message to MN 502” before SN addition request acknowledge message to MN at step 512 – See [¶0283] whereby “the SN change required message includes a container for identification (e.g., PSCell Change Mobility Information), in order to enable later identification and correlation” – See [¶0284]);
the transmitting the SPC configuration comprises transmitting a first PScell change report configuration to the master node (“For a SN initiated PSCell change or CPAC procedure, timer T310 or T312 triggering threshold for SPC-report (e.g., thresholdPercentageT310 or thresholdPercentageT312) is generated by a source SN, and timer T304 triggering threshold for SPC-report (e.g., thresholdPercentageT304) is generated by a target SN” – See [¶0271] and the configurations are “sent from the source SN to a MN. Then, the MN configures it to the UE in the configuration for triggering the UE to log, generate, or store successful PSCell change related information (e.g., successPSCellChange-Config IE)” – See [¶0272]); and
the receiving the SPC report comprises receiving the SPC report from the master node (“In Step 515, UE 501 logs, generates or stores information associated with a successful completion of a PSCell change procedure or a CPAC procedure (e.g., 1st information), if the trigger condition is fulfilled” – See [¶0288] and Fig. 5; and “after MN 502 receives the SPC-report via Step 516, MN 502 transfer the SPC-report to source SN 503 in Step 517A and/or target SN 504 in Step 517B, e.g., via a new defined X2/Xn message (e.g., SPC-Report Transfer message)” – See [¶0292]) .
Therefore, Amended Claim 9 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Claim 10, dependent from Amended Claim 9, Yan further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein: the SN change request indicates a threshold for a first timer (“For a SN initiated PSCell change . . . timer T310 or T312 triggering threshold for SPC-report (e.g., thresholdPercentageT310 or thresholdPercentageT312) is generated by a source SN” – See [¶0271], and
wherein the SPC report is based on the first PScell change report configuration and a second PScell change report configuration (e.g., “When a source SN configures timer T312 related triggering threshold, a single timer T312 threshold common to all measurement frequencies or identities or objects” triggers the SPC-report – See [¶0271], whereby the “UE shall log SPC-report when any timer T312 which is running for any measurement identity/object configured to the UE meets timer T312 triggering threshold, or when a ratio between a value of elapsed running time of timer T312 related to a measurement frequency or a measurement identity or a measurement object of any cell and a configured value of the timer T312 (e.g., the configured value of the timer T312 is configured while the UE was connected to the source PSCell before executing the last PSCell change or CPAC procedure) is longer than a threshold (e.g., the threshold is included in the configuration, e.g., successPSCellChange-Config configured by the PCell or source PSCell before executing the last PSCell change or CPAC, it can be named as thresholdPercentageT312)” and “[i]n the SPC-report, the UE shall include: information associated with the measurement frequency or identity or object that is configured to the UE, e.g., measurement frequency or identity or object of any cell that configured by the network to the UE for RRM measurement; and/or cell information associated with the measurement frequency or identity or object that is configured to the UE, e.g., global cell identity and tracking area code, and/or, PCI and carrier frequency ( e.g., Absolute Radio Frequency Channel Number (ARFCN)) of any cell that configured by the network to the UE for RRM measurement” – See [¶0274]; in addition, a “SPC-report shall be generated only when elapsed running time of timer T304 related to the target PSCell is longer than a threshold, or, when a ratio between a value of elapsed running time of timer T304 related to the target PSCell and a configured value of the timer T304 (e.g., the configured value of the timer T304 is configured in the RRC message for the last PSCell change or CPAC procedure) is longer than a threshold (e.g., the threshold is included in the configuration, e.g., successPSCellChange-Config configured by the PCell or source PSCell before executing the last PSCell change or CPAC, it can be named as thresholdPercentageT304)” wherein “the UE shall include cell information associated with the target PSCell” – See [¶0277])
wherein the second PScell change report configuration indicates a threshold for a second timer associated with a target SN (“timer T304 triggering threshold for SPC-report (e.g., thresholdPercentageT304) is generated by a target SN” – See [¶0271]).
Therefore, Claim 10 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Claim 11, dependent from Amended Claim 9, Yan further teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving, from the master node, a secondary cell group (SCG) failure report (“UE 501 transmits the 2nd information (e.g., SCG failure information) to MN 502” – See [¶0295] wherein “UE 501 can include a C-RNTI of a source PSCell and/or a C-RNTI of a target PSCell and/or a C-RNTI of a PCell in the 2nd information (e.g., SCG failure information)” – See [¶0296] and “after MN 502 receives the SCG failure information, MN 502 may send at least one of: . . . a SN UE XnAP or X2AP ID allocated at source SN 503, and a SN UE XnAP or X2AP ID allocated at target SN 504 to target SN 504 in Step 520 (e.g., via a SCG failure information report message)” – See [¶0298] and Fig. 5); and
performing a network optimization based on a correlation of the SCG failure report with the SPC report (“Step 517A or 517B, MN 502 may send the time information to source SN 503 and/or target SN 504, e.g., include at least one of: absolute timestamp when the SPC-report is generated or transmitted, time elapsed from ‘the time when receiving an RRC message for a PSCell change or CPAC procedure’ to ‘the time when the SPCreport is generated/transmitted’” – See [¶0307] and “In Step 520 or 522, MN 502 may send the 2nd information including the time information to source SN 503 and/or target SN 504, e.g., include at least one of: absolute timestamp when the SCG failure information is generated or transmitted, time elapsed from ‘the time when receiving an RRC message for a PSCell change or CPAC procedure’ to ‘the time when the SCG failure information is generated or transmitted’, time elapsed from ‘the time when the SPC-report is generated or transmitted’ to ‘the time when the SCG failure information is generated or transmitted’” – See [¶0310] and “Based on the received time information in Steps 517 A and 522, source SN 503 can identify whether the SPC-report and the SCG failure information are for the same PSCell change or CPAC procedure or not. For example, if the time elapsed between these two reports are smaller than a configured threshold, source SN 503 may identify that the SPC-report and the SCG failure information are for the same PSCell change or CPAC procedure,” i.e., the SPC-report and the SCG failure information are correlated and “source SN 503 may correspondingly modify parameter(s) related to the PSCell change or CPAC procedure” – See [¶0311])
wherein the receiving the SPC report comprises receiving the SPC report from the master node (“UE 501's context (e.g., source PSCell related UE context or UE context associated with PSCell change or CPAC) is released in source SN 503 when MN 502 transfers the SPC-report (e.g., 1st information) and/or the SCG failure information (e.g., 2nd information) to source SN 503 and/or target SN 504” – See [¶0315], i.e., the MN sends the SPC-report to the SN).
Therefore, Claim 11 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Claim 13, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Yan further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a secondary cell group (SCG) failure report (“in response to fulfilling a trigger condition, a UE generates, logs, and/or stores information associated with a successful completion of a PSCell change procedure or a CPAC procedure (which is named as ‘1st information’ for simplicity)” and “the UE transmits the 1st information to a MN,” e.g., “the UE transmits SPC-report to the MN in operation 202 when a PSCell change or CPAC procedure is successful, e.g., via the UE information response message” – See [¶0079] and Fig. 2, furthermore, “the UE generates information associated with a SCG failure (which is named as ‘2nd information’ for simplicity),” e.g., “the UE transmits SCG failure information to the MN when a SCG failure happens shortly after the successful PSCell change or CPAC, via the SCG failure information message, after transmitting the SPC report” – See [¶0080] and “the MN may: modify parameter(s) related to the PSCell change procedure or the CPAC procedure, based on the received 1st information and 2nd information” – See [¶0135]) wherein:
the SCG failure report includes a first indicator associated with the SPC report (“the 2nd information includes: C-RNTI of the source PSCell of the UE; a C-RNTI of the target PSCell of the UE;” – See [¶¶0081-87] i.e., a first indicator associated with the SPC executed by the UE, hence the SPC report)
the SPC report includes a second indicator associated with the SCG failure report (the 1st information . . . includes: C-RNTI of the source PSCell of the UE; a C-RNTI of the target PSCell of the UE;” – See [¶¶0081-87]);
or a combination thereof (“an indication for indicating whether both the 1st information and the 2nd information are associated with the PSCell change procedure” – See [¶0087]); and
performing a network optimization based on a correlation of the SCG failure report with the SPC report (“After MN 402 receives the SPC-report and the SCG failure information, based on the same C-RNTI(s), e.g., C-RNTI of source PSCell and/or C-RNTI of target PSCell, . . . included in the SPC-report and the SCG failure information, MN 402 can correlate the SPC-report with the SCG failure information, e.g., MN 402 can know the SPC-report and the SCG failure information are concerning a same PSCell change procedure” therefore “MN 402 can correspondingly modify parameter(s) related to the PSCell change” – See [¶0243]; and “[i]t is necessary for the network to know this correlation information, in order to make MRO analysis properly or avoid a wrong SCG failure type” – See [¶0208].
wherein the correlation is based on at least one of the first indicator or the second indicator (the correlation is based on C-RNTI(s) associated with the source and the target PScell of the UE, as explained, supra).
Therefore, Claim 13 is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Regarding Claims 16-22, 24-26, and 28, as amended, each recites the same features and limitations as each method recited in Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13, respectively, as amended, using the same claim language, only adapted to be executed by a first network unit comprising a memory device; a transceiver; and a processor in communication with the processor and the transceiver, wherein the first network unit is configured to perform the steps of each the methods. Because Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 teaches a first network unit comprising a memory device; a transceiver; and a processor in communication with the processor and the transceiver (“the apparatus 700 may include at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 702, at least one receiving circuitry 704, at least one transmitting circuitry 706, and at least one processor 708 coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium 702, the receiving circuitry 704 and the transmitting circuitry 706” whereby “[t]he apparatus 700 may be a network node (e.g., a MN or a source SN) or a UE configured to perform a method illustrated in the above or the like” – See [¶0329] and Fig. 7) and each of the Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13, respectively, as amended is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789, each of the Claims 16-22, 24-26, and 28, as amended, is anticipated by Yan, or, in the alternative, is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
In sum, Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, 16-22, 24-26 and 28, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Yan or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789.
Claims 8, 12, 23 and 27, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 as applied to Claims 4, 9, 19 and 26 above, as amended, and further in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #118-e, R2-2205831, Title: “CR 0321- Corrections to 37.340 for CPAC and CHO co-existence” Source: Interdigital, May 2022 (hereinafter 3GPP R2-2205831) further amending 3GPP TS 37.340 supra, included by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, dependent from Claim 4, obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789, Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 further teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising:
receiving, from the UE, a secondary cell group (SCG) failure report (“UE 401 transmits the 2nd information (e.g., SCG failure information) to MN” – See Yan:[¶0243] and Fig. 4, whereby “[a] MN initiated SN/PSCell change procedure is used to transfer a UE context from the source SN to a target SN and to change the SCG configuration in UE from one SN to another” – See Yan:[¶0064]),
wherein the receiving the SPC report comprises receiving the SPC report from a second master node different from the master node (an SPC report contains “information associated with the measurement frequency or identity or object that is configured to the UE, e.g., measurement frequency or identity or object of any cell that configured by the network to the UE for RRM measurement,” – See Yan:[¶0106] as configured by the first MN through a “RRC reconfiguration message [which] also includes configuration(s) for a PSCell change” – See Yan:[¶0235], and an SPC report can be sent inter-RAT systems “via a new defined Xn/X2 message ( e.g., SPC-Report Transfer message)” – See, e.g., Yan:[¶0316], whereby the SPC report can be sent to an MN as “the 1st information [which] may be included an RRC message sent by the UE, e.g., a UE information response message” – See Yan:[¶0116]),
wherein the performing the network optimization is based on a correlation of the SCG failure report with the SPC report (“After MN 402 receives the SPC-report and the SCG failure information, based on the indication in the SCG failure information, MN 402 can correlate the latest SPC-report with the SCG failure information, e.g., MN 402 can know the SPC-report and the SCG failure information are concerning a same PSCell change procedure” – See Yan:[¶0250] and “perform a MRO function for parameter(s) related to the PSCell change” – See Yan:[¶0267]).
Although Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 teaches various dual connectivity scenarios depending on the RAT technology and the Xn control plane interface between two NG-RAN nodes for transferring SPC report from one node to another, Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 does not explicitly teach a second MN sending the SPC report to the first MN.
3GPP R2-2205831:3 teaches that, regarding multi-connectivity operations as described in § 10, 3GPP TS 37.340, in Rel-17 “[c]onditional PSCell Addition or Change (CPAC) can be configured simultaneously with CHO” as long as “the UE treats the CPAC and the CHO configuration independently” even though a case “where both CPAC and CHO triggering conditions are fulfilled simultaneously (i.e., which one to prioritize) is left to UE implementation,” whereby, e.g., §§ 10.7.1-2 disclose inter-MN handover procedure7 with MN initiated SN change.
Section 10.18, 3GPP 37.340:102, like Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789, teaches self-optimisation for PSCell change whereby “the ‘successful PSCell change’ refers to the UE state, namely the successful completion of the RA procedure” and in case of failure “the UE makes the SCG Failure Information available to the MN.” Section 10.7, 3GPP 37.340:70-71 further teaches Inter-Master Node handover with/without MN initiated Secondary Node change used to transfer context data from a source MN to a target MN while the context at the SN is kept or moved to another SN, i.e., an inter-MN handover may happen after the first MN already configured a PSCell change at the UE for changing the SCG configuration in UE from one SN to another and possibly obtained a SCG failure message from the UE regarding the SN change – See Note 3, 3GPP 37.340:71 (“The source MN may trigger the MN-initiated SN Modification procedure (to the source SN) to retrieve the current SCG configuration before step 1” and Figure 10.7.1-1, wherein at step 1 “source MN starts the handover procedure by initiating the X2 Handover Preparation procedure including both MCG and SCG configuration” and after “[t]he source MN triggers the UE to apply the new configuration . . . UE synchronizes to the target MN and replies with RRCConnectionReconfigurationComplete message”). Because the UE is in RRC_CONNECT with the second/target MN, this MN may perform UEInformationRequest to request the UE to report information, e.g., a stored SPC-report configured by the first/source MN8. Section 10.7, 3GPP 37.340:71-72 further teaches the target MN interacting with the source MN, e.g., “indicates to the source MN that the UE context in the SN is kept if the target MN and the SN decided to keep the UE context in the SN” and “initiates the UE Context Release procedure towards the source MN.”
Thus, Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and 3GPP R2-2205831 each teaches amendments to 3GPP TS 37.340 in view of MN initiated SN/PSCell conditional change at a UE in dual connectivity. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the support of the MN initiated PSCell/SN/SCG change as taught in Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 could be combined with the inter-MN HO as announced by 3GPP R2-2205831 because both 3GPP R3-223789 and 3GPP R2-2205831 amend multiconnectivity procedures specified in § 10, 3GPP TS 37.340 and reviewed by 3GPP RAN workgroups before the effective date of the present application. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art, particularly when the method taught in Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 is combined with a simple inter-MN HO and not a conditional HO and the target MN in the HO procedure may obtain a SPC-report from the UE using UEInformationRequest, as taught by Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789, and sends the SPC-report to the source MN together with the UE Context Release, as taught by 3GPP 37.340, or as a separate Xn SPC-Report Transfer message as taught in Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789, because both wireless systems support inter-MN communication over Xn interface. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of aligning with the Rel-17 standard support for combining PSCell/SCG change with inter-MN handover as described in 3GPP R2-2205831 referencing § 10 of 3GPP TS 37.340.
Thus, Claim 8 is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R2-2205831.
Regarding Claim 12, dependent from Amended Claim 9, obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 , Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 further teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving, from the master node, a secondary cell group (SCG) failure report (in a SN initiated PSCell change, the “UE 501 transmits the 2nd information (e.g., SCG failure information) including the time information to MN 502” – See Yan:[¶0309] and the “MN 502 may send the 2nd information including the time information to source SN 503 and/or target SN 504” – See Yan:[¶0310] and Fig. 5); and
performing a network optimization based on a correlation of the SCG failure report with the SPC report (“source SN performs a MRO function, e.g., analysis of SCG failure (s) and/or modification(s) for PSCell change or CPAC related configuration(s) source SN 503 transmits a SN change required message to MN 502” – See Yan:[¶0280] and Fig. 5, whereby “the SN change required message includes a container for identification (e.g., PSCell Change Mobility Information), in order to enable later identification and correlation” – See Yan:[¶0284], e.g., “if the time elapsed between these two reports are smaller than a configured threshold, source SN 503 may identify that the SPC-report and the SCG failure information are for the same PSCell change” – See Yan:[¶0311]),
wherein the receiving the SPC report comprises receiving the SPC report from a second master node different from the master node (“to enable source SN 503 to identify the PSCell change or CPAC related information (e.g., the SPC-report initially sent from UE 501, and the SCG failure information initially sent from UE 501) and correlate the SPC-report with the SCG failure information, MN 502 can send one container (e.g., PSCell Change Mobility Information) to source SN 503 . . . e.g., via a new defined Xn/X2 message ( e.g., SPC-Report Transfer message), and via a SCG FAILURE INFORMATION REPORT message” – See Yan:[¶0316]).
Although Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 does not teach the SPC-report sent by a second MN to the first MN before the first MN sends it to the SN over an Xn interface, Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R2-2205831, teaches such a case, as explained in Regarding Claim 8 supra, reciting the same limitation with the same language. Because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination of the teachings of Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R2-2205831, as explained in Regarding Claim 8, through techniques known in the art, Claim 12 is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R2-2205831.
Regarding Amended Claims 23 and 27, dependent from Amended Claims 19 and 26, respectively, each of the Claims 23 and 27 recites the same features and limitations as each method recited in Claims 8 and 12, respectively, using the same claim language, only adapted to be executed by the first network node of Amended Claim 16. Because Claims 16, 19 and 26, as amended, are obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789, and each of the Claims 8 and 12 is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R2-2205831, Claims 23 and 27 are obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R2-2205831.
In sum, Claims 8, 12, 23 and 27, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R2-2205831.
Amended Claims 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789, and further in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #111, R3-210676, Agenda Item: 10.2.1.6, Title: "On the SCG Failure Information delivery for MRO use case," Source: Ericsson, February 2021 (hereinafter 3GPP R3-210676).
Regarding Claim 14, Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), wherein the method comprises:
receiving, from a network node, a reconfiguration message for a PSCell change (“MN 402 transmits an RRC reconfiguration message to UE 401,” whereby “the RRC reconfiguration message includes configuration(s) relating to the trigger condition for UE 401 for logging, generating, and/or storing the SPC related information. The configuration(s) relating to the trigger condition for SPC related information (e.g., successPSCellChangeConfig),” and “also includes configuration(s) for a PSCell change” – See Yan:[¶¶0233-35] and Fig. 4, wherein the “UE 401 sends the information associated with a successful completion of a PSCell change procedure or a CPAC procedure (e.g., 1st information) to the network, e.g., a MN or a target SN” – See Yan:[¶0236]);
detecting, based on the reconfiguration message, a PSCell change failure (“if a physical layer issue is detected by the UE during an ongoing PSCell change” – See Yan:[¶0066], “the UE generates information associated with a SCG failure (which is named as ‘2nd information’ for simplicity)” – See Yan:[¶0080])
transmitting, to the network node based on the detecting the failure, a secondary cell group (SCG) failure report indicating SCG failure-related information (“the UE transmits SCG failure information to the MN when a SCG failure happens shortly after the successful PSCell change or CPAC, via the SCG failure information message, after transmitting the SPC-report” – See Yan:[¶0080] whereby the SCG failure-related information may include all items described in Yan:[¶¶0177-0195], including timing information as described in Yan:[¶¶0201-203]); and
transmitting, to the network node after the transmitting the SCG report9, a further SCG failure report indicating additional SCG failure-related information (the “MN 402 can understand that the SPC-report,” i.e., the SCG change report, “and the SCG failure information,” i.e., the SCG failure report, “are for the same PSCell change or CPAC procedure, and perform a MRO function for parameter(s) related to the PSCell change” or “that the SPC-report and the SCG failure information are for different PSCell change or CPAC procedures, and would treat the SPC-report and the SCG failure information separately, e.g., perform modification for parameter( s) related to the PSCell change or CPAC procedure twice separately” – See Yan:[¶0267]; see also 3GPP TS 38.331:392-394 (describing SCGFailureInformation message “used to provide information regarding NR SCG failures detected by the UE”),
wherein the additional SCG failure related information comprises at least one of an indication of a first satisfied condition associated with the reconfiguration message for PSCell change, or
a time duration between a first satisfied condition and a second satisfied condition associated with the reconfiguration message for the PSCell change (“the time information related to the 2nd information,” i.e., when the SCG failure occurred, comprises “a time duration from the 2nd absolute time to the 3rd absolute time,” i.e., time duration from the “absolute time when an RRC message for the PSCell change procedure or the CPAC procedure is received by the UE (e.g., 2nd absolute time),” i.e., the first satisfied condition associated with the reconfiguration message for the PSCell change10, until the SCG failure report is generated during a PSCell change, i.e., the second condition associated with the reconfiguration message for the PSCell change – See Yan:[¶¶0158, 0162]; furthermore, the time duration from the 2nd absolute time to the 3rd absolute time is used in the MRO analysis because “[i]f the SCG failure information is received before the [Tstore_UE_cntxt] timer is expired, MN 402 may stop the timer in Step 417A, and MN 402 can understand that the SPC-report and the SCG failure information are for the same PSCell change or CPAC procedure, and perform a MRO function for parameter(s) related to the PSCell change” otherwise “perform modification for parameter(s) related to the PSCell change or CPAC procedure twice separately” – See Yan:[¶0267]).
In the alternative that “the SCG report” term refers to the preceding “SCG failure report,” then Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 does not teach transmitting, to the network node after the transmitting the SCG failure report, a further SCG failure report indicating additional SCG failure-related information wherein the additional SCG failure related information comprises at least one of an indication of a first satisfied condition associated with the reconfiguration message for PSCell change.
Section 2.2, 3GPP R3-210676:2-3 teaches transmitting, to the network node after the transmitting the SCG failure report, a further SCG failure report wherein the additional SCG failure related information comprises an indication of a first satisfied condition associated with the reconfiguration message for PSCell change (“as part of RRC specification, SCGFailureInformation is reported to the network right upon the SCG link failure” and “the SCGFailureInformation report is designed for fast reactions by network, and in particular by MN, to decide about DC setup configuration (i.e., to keep, change or release the SN/SCG) . . . by analysing the measurement report provided as part of SCGFailureInformation”; however, for “not to increase the size of the SCGFailureInformation report and instead to allow reporting of the new information (e.g. RA Report) in a separate report that can be signalled by the UE at a later stage, in a way similar to reporting of the RLF Report, which can be reported to up to 48 hours after the failure . . . the data required for MRO purpose can be collected by the UE in a separatee (new) report and they can be retrieved by using a solicitation mechanism when network finds a suitable time and stable link to collect such measurements . . . in such a way that the UE reports the essential information as part of SCGFailureInformation (for urgent DC analysis), and log the additional information (such as RA info and global cell identities) for MRO analysis upon request from network in a new report”; furthermore, because the RA info and global cell identities are reported in the separate SCG failure report, it is possible that the RA was successful based on the RACH configuration provided as part of SCG Change procedure, i.e., a first condition associated with the reconfiguration message for PSCell change was satisfied).
Thus, Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and 3GPP R3-210676 each teaches the SCGFailureInformation report containing additional SCG failure-related information, e.g. RA information report, for the MN to perform MRO analysis. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the proposal of 3GPP R3-210676 to include additional SCG failure-related information in an additional SCGFailureInformation-like report could have been substituted in for transmitting at once the whole SCG failure-related information described in Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 because the additional SCGFailureInformation-like report serve the purpose of providing more information to the MN to perform MRO analysis. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing a MN to react quickly on the first urgent and mandatory SCGFailureInformation report, and log the additional information (such as RA info and global cell identities) for MRO analysis upon request from network in a new report, as taught in 3GPP R3-210676.
Thus Claim 14 is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R3-210676.
Regarding Amended Claim 29, it merely recites the same features and limitations as recited for each method in Amended Claim 14, only applied to a user equipment (UE) comprising: a memory device; a transceiver; and a processor in communication with the processor and the transceiver, wherein the UE is configured to perform the method recited in Claims 14. Because Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 teaches such a UE (“the apparatus 700 may include at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 702, at least one receiving circuitry 704, at least one transmitting circuitry 706, and at least one processor 708 coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium 702, the receiving circuitry 704 and the transmitting circuitry 706” may be “a UE configured to perform a method illustrated” – See Yan:[¶0329] and Fig. 7) and the UE modified by 3GPP R3-210676 makes obvious the method in Amended Claim 15, Amended Claims 29 is obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R3-210676.
In sum, Amended Claims 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Yan in view of 3GPP R3-223789 and further in view of 3GPP R3-210676.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0205763 discloses reporting information on PSCell change procedure for UE in dual connectivity scenario;
Xu et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0049073 discloses methods and apparatuses for supporting self-configuration and self-optimization based on information related to a Master Cell Group (MCG) failure and detecting a failure cause based on the information related to the MCG failure;
Zhang et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2025/0008389 discloses PSCell switch procedure to switch from a source PSCell to a target PSCell in MR-DC scenario;
Jiang, U.S. Patent Application No. 2025/0267535 discloses reporting secondary cell group failure information which includes configuration information for a conditional primary secondary cell (PSCell) addition or change;
Parichehrehteroujeni et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0397080 discloses reporting detection of a radio link failure or a Secondary Cell Group, SCG, failure after a successful handover;
Sabouri-Sichani et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0406833 discloses techniques of configuring and executing CHO including in a RRC reconfiguration of the UE, during a CHO configuration process in which a PSCell is unchanged;
Pan et al., WIPO Patent Application No. WO 2024/029932 (US 2026/0046737) discloses 5G or 6G communication system supporting CHO + CPAC operations;
3GPP TS 28.313 V17.5.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; Self-Organizing Networks (SON) for 5G networks (Release 17)”;
3GPP TS 38.300 V17.1.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 17)”;
3GPP TS 38.321 V17.1.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 17)”;
3GPP TS 38.331 V17.1.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)”;
3GPP TS 38.423 V17.1.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NG-RAN; Xn application protocol (XnAP) (Release 17)”;
3GPP TS 38.401 V17.1.1 (2022-07), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NG-RAN; Architecture description (Release 17)”;
3GPP TS 37.340 V17.1.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and NR; Multi-connectivity; Stage 2 (Release 17)”;
3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #116-e, R3-223136, Title: "(CR for 38.401) Correction on support of CPAC," Source: China Telecom;
3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #116-e, R3-223900, Title: “CR to 38.401 for Corrections on Overall procedures for CPAC,” Source: CATT, China Telecom, NEC, Google;
3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #116-e, R3-223114, Title: “Completion of the CPC description to TS37.340,” Source: ZTE, Lenovo, CATT;
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #118-e, R2-2205164, Title:” Further consideration on CPAC/CHO coexistence,” Source: ZTE Corporation, Sanechips, May 2022;
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #118-e, R2-2206721, Title: “Correction on MRO for SN Change Failure” Source: Lenovo, CR to TS 37.340, May 2022.
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/KODZOVI ACOLATSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 Although the Summary is compiled by Qualcomm, the contributions referenced herein come from other member companies.
2 The present Specification does not give a special meaning or specific content to the communication between the MN and the SN – See, e.g., [¶0060] (“the BSs 105 may communicate, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through core network), with each other over backhaul links (e.g., X1, X2, etc.), which may be wired or wireless communication links”), therefore the term takes its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skills in the art, e.g. an exchange of messages or information between the MN and the SN, e.g., the AN addition request followed by the SN addition request acknowledgement.
3 Section 15.5.2, 3GPP TS 38.300 V17.1.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.300) describes MRO as “aim[ing] at detecting and enabling correction of following problems: Connection failure due to intra-system or inter-system mobility; Inter-system Unnecessary HO (too early inter-system HO from NR to E-UTRAN with no radio link failure); Inter-system HO ping-pong” – See 3GPP TS 38.300:126.
4 See § 7.1.2, 3GPP TS 28.313 V17.5.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; Self-Organizing Networks (SON) for 5G networks (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 28.313) specifying Tstore_UE_cntxt among the parameters to be updated in MRO operations – See 3GPP 28.313:33 (showing in Table 7.1.2.2.3-1 the ranges of handover parameter Tstore_UE_cntxt between [1…1023]X100ms).
5 For example, § 2.2, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #119-e, R2-2207706, Title: “SON enhancements for successful PSCell change report and SHR for inter-RAT HO,” Source: Lenovo, published August, 10, 2022, states that “in R17, MRO for PSCell change failure in NR-NR DC is supported, other left MR-DC scenarios would be discussed in R18 since limited R17 TU. Similar as MRO for PSCell change failure, in R18 when we considering successful PSCell change report, NR-NR DC scenario should be prioritized” and that “for reporting successful PSCell change, configuration for generating successful PSCell change report e.g. T310/T312/T304 trigger threshold associated with PSCell should be configured to the UE. For example, in case of MN initiated PSCell change or CPC, T310/T312 trigger threshold may be generated by MN, and T304 trigger threshold may be generated by taregt SN; in case of SN initiated PSCell change or CPC, T310/T312 trigger threshold may be generated by source SN, and T304 trigger threshold may be generated by target SN. It is MN provides the configuration for generating successful PSCell change report to the UE.”
6 Here, one of the broadest reasonable interpretations is the “near failure scenario,” as understood by one of ordinary skills in the art, because the Specification does not define or exemplify this limitation. In addition, it is noted that “[o]ne of the functions of Mobility Robustness Optimization is to detect connection failures that occur due to Too Early or Too Late Handovers, or Handover to Wrong Cell” wherein the detection is based on an "UE reported timer" that indicates “the time elapsed since the last handover initialisation until connection failure or the time elapsed since the CHO execution until connection failure” as compared with a threshold such as Tstore_UE_cntxt parameter configurable by the OAM system – See § 15.5.2.2.2, 3GPP TS 38.300:127-129. Hence, “too early” or “too late” are thresholds for “near failure scenarios” regarding successful handovers.
7 To be sure, the present Specification discloses the second MN only in relationship with a UE handover procedure from the first MN to the second MN – See, e.g., [¶0143] and Fig. 7.
8 See, e.g., § 5.7.10, 3GPP TS 38.331:259-269 (describing the UEInformationRequest and UEInformationResponse exchange between a UE and a MN).
9 Here, the term “SCG report” is interpreted as being the same with SPC report, i.e., the first report sent by the UE to the MN.
10 The present Specification does not explain or exemplify the meaning of a “satisfied condition associated with the reconfiguration message for PSCell change” – See [¶0291] and [¶0271]. In addition, [¶0271] discloses “a first satisfied conditional event for the cell reconfiguration” instead of a first condition. Therefore, any satisfied condition associated with the SPC procedure may reasonably be “a first satisfied condition” under the BRI standard.