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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “receiver, receiving” in line 2 to “receiver configured to receive” and “receiver, detecting” in line 4 to “receiver configured to detect”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “transmitter, transmitting” in line 2 to “transmitter configured to transmit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “transmitter, initiating” in line 2 to “transmitter configured to initiate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “transmitter, transmitting” in line 2 to “transmitter configured to transmit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “receiver, receiving” in line 2 to “receiver configured to receive”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are 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(s) 1, the boundaries of “receiving an indication of Medium…”, “receiving an indication of Radio…”, “receiving an indication of MAC…”, “detecting whether a first event triggers…”, “detecting a first even triggers…”, “when there is an ongoing first signaling procedure”, “detecting a first event does not trigger…”, and “an execution of the first signaling”, is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first receiver, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the first node in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claims 2-19 fails to resolve the deficiency and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the behavior of detecting…" in lines 9 and 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-19 fails to resolve the deficiency and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what “the first signaling procedure” in line 16 is referring to since there are multiple instances of “ongoing first signaling procedure” in claim 1. Claims 2-19 fails to resolve the deficiency and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 2, the boundaries of “an ongoing first signaling procedure”, is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first receiver, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the first node in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claims dependent on claim 2 fails to resolve the deficiency and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what “the first signaling procedure” in line 2 is referring to since there are multiple instances of “ongoing first signaling procedure” in claim 1. Claims dependent on claim 2 fails to resolve the deficiency and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 3-4, the boundaries of “initiating the first signaling procedure” and “an ongoing first signaling procedure”, is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first receiver, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the first node in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claims dependent on claims 3-4 fails to resolve the deficiency and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3-4, it is unclear what “the first signaling procedure” in line 2 is referring to since there are multiple instances of “ongoing first signaling procedure” in claim 1. Claims dependent on claims 3-4 fails to resolve the deficiency and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 5-8, the boundaries of “determine whether to start a first timer”, “an ongoing first signaling procedure”, “start the first timer”, and receiving N continuous…”, is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first receiver, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the first node in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first transmitter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the first transmitter” in line 2 and "the behavior of initiating..." in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim(s) 10, the boundaries of “initiating an RRC re-establishment comprises…”, “selecting the target…”, and “executing the first signaling”, is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first receiver, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the first node in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first transmitter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 12-14, it is unclear what “the first event” in lines 2-3 is referring to since there are multiple “first event” in claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 12-14, the boundaries of “an ongoing first signaling procedure”, is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first receiver, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the first node in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear what “the first signaling procedure” in line 3 is referring to since there are multiple instances of “ongoing first signaling procedure” in claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 15, the boundaries of “a reception of the first indication”, is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first receiver, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the first node in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear how there is the first signaling that is both comprised in an RRCReconfiguration message and the first signaling.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear what “the first signaling procedure” in lines 2-3 are referring to since there are multiple instances of “ongoing first signaling procedure” in claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 18, the boundaries of “an initiation of the first signaling procedure”, is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a first receiver, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the first node in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear what “the first signaling procedure” in line 2 is referring to since there are multiple instances of “ongoing first signaling procedure” in claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the behavior of detecting…" in lines 9 and 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what “the first signaling procedure” in line 15 is referring to since there are multiple instances of “ongoing first signaling procedure” in claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts of record, in single or combination, does not teach, suggest or provide rationale for “a first receiver, receiving a first signaling; the first signaling comprising a first cell identity, the first cell identity being configured to a target Special Cell (SpCell); and the first receiver, detecting a first event; wherein the first event belongs to a first candidate event set, the first candidate event set comprises at least one of a first timer being expired, receiving an indication of Medium Access Control (MAC) of an Master Cell Group (MCG) related to a problem occurring in random access procedure, receiving an indication of Radio link Control (RLC) of an MCG related to reaching a maximum number of retransmissions, or receiving an indication of MAC of an MCG related to continuous uplink listen before talk (LBT) failure; the behavior of detecting whether a first event triggers radio link failure is related to whether there is an ongoing first signaling procedure; when there is no ongoing first signaling procedure, the behavior of detecting a first event triggers radio link failure; when there is an ongoing first signaling procedure, the behavior of detecting a first event does not trigger radio link failure; the first signaling is a Radio Resource Control (RRC) layer signaling; the first signaling comprises a first field; the first field is used to configure the target SpCell; an execution of the first signaling depends on a second signaling; the second signaling is a control signaling of a MAC layer or control information of a physical layer; the first signaling procedure comprises at least one of transmitting a first signal, expecting the second signaling, receiving the second signaling, or executing the first signaling; the first signal comprises a measurement result of L1” of claim 1 and similarly for claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230262565 discloses RRC reconfiguration message contains sPCell configuration which includes a cell index number and indicating whether the link failure occurs in a DAPS handover procedure in which a connection to the target base station has not been successfully established yet (that is, T304 is running); and
US 20230180330 discloses RRC reconfiguration message contains sPCell configuration which includes a cell index number and RLF of the source link may occur during the DAPS handover procedure (T304 is running).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476