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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were submitted on 4/27/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Objections”, with respect to claims 1, 9-10, 12, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the cancellation of claims 1, 9-10, 12, and 15. The objection of claims 1, 9-10, 12, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112”, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the cancellation of claims 1-20. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites “the transmitter, the receiver, and the processors are configured to” perform the receive, detect, first determine, and second determine processes. Applicant does not provide support for this nor has Examiner found support for this feature within the specification. Furthermore, claim 21 recites “an indication from MAC of the MCG relating to continuous…”. Applicant does not provide support for this nor has Examiner found support for this feature within the specification. The closest the Examiner could find is an indication from MAC of an MCG (which appears to introduce another MCG) relating to continuous uplink LBT failure. Claims 22-30 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 21 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 31 recite similar limitations of claim 21 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claims 32-40 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 31 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites “the receiver” “are further configured to: transmit a first report”. Applicant does not provide support for this nor has Examiner found support for this feature within the specification.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites “the transmitter, the receiver, and the processor are further configured to: initiate an RRC connection re-establishment, perform…, and execute…”. Applicant does not provide support for this nor has Examiner found support for this feature within the specification. The closet the Examiner could find is in ¶ 826 of the published specification which recites in part “the first transmitter 1102 initiates an RRC connection re-establishment; the behavior of initiating an RRC re-establishment comprises executing cell selection”.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites “the transmitter, the receiver, and the processor are further configured to: receive, from MAC of an MCG, a first indication”. Applicant does not provide support for this nor has Examiner found support for this feature within the specification.
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) 21-30 and 38 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 21, it is unclear how to, in view of “the transmitter” “are configured to”, “receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling” using the transmitter. Furthermore, the boundaries of “receipt of an indication from Medium…”, “receipt of an indication from Radio…”, “receipt of an indication from MAC…”, “signaling procedure is ongoing”, “transmitting a signal”, “expecting control signaling…”, “receiving the control…”, “executing the RRC…”, “execution of the RRC signaling”, “receipt of the control signaling of the MAC…”, and “detection of the event…” 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 transmitter or a receiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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 22-30 fails to resolve the deficiency and/or recite similar issues and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 22, the boundaries of “execution of the signaling procedure…” and “execution of the 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 transmitter or a receiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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(s) 23, the boundaries of “initiation of the signaling procedure” and “starting a second timer” 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 transmitter or a receiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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(s) 24, the boundaries of “whether to start the first timer is determined” and “receipt of N consecutive…” 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 transmitter or a receiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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 25, it is unclear how “the receiver” “are further configured to: transmit a report….”.
Regarding claim(s) 26, the boundaries of “selecting the target SpCell” 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 transmitter or a receiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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(s) 27, the boundaries of “transmission of the signal…” 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 transmitter or a receiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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 claims 28 and 38, it is unclear what “the MCG” is referring to since there are multiple instances of MCG.
Regarding claim 28, it is unclear how to, in view of “the transmitter” “are further configured to”, “receive” “a first indication” using the transmitter.
Regarding claim(s) 30, the boundaries of “initiation of the signaling procedure…” and “starting a second timer” 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 transmitter or a receiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 22-30 and 32-40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and/or 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 “receiving a radio resource control (RRC) signaling, the RRC signaling comprising a cell identity and a field, the cell identity being configured to a target special cell (SpCell), and the field being used to configure the target SpCell; detecting an event belonging to a candidate event set, the candidate event set comprising at least one of expiration of a first timer, receipt of an indication from medium access control (MAC) of a master cell group (MCG) relating to a problem occurring in a random access procedure, receipt of an indication from radio link control (RLC) of the MCG relating to reaching a maximum number of retransmissions, or receipt of an indication from MAC of the MCG relating to continuous uplink listen-before-talk (LBT) failure; determining whether a signaling procedure is ongoing, the signaling procedure comprising at least one of transmitting a signal, expecting control signaling of a MAC layer or control information of a physical layer, receiving the control signaling of the MAC layer or the control information of the physical layer, or executing the RRC signaling, the signal comprising a Layer 1 (L1) measurement result, and execution of the RRC signaling being performed only after receipt of the control signaling of the MAC layer or the control information of the physical layer; and determining whether detection of the event triggers radio link failure based on whether the signaling procedure is ongoing, such that, when the signaling procedure is not ongoing, detection of the event triggers radio link failure, and, when the signaling procedure is ongoing, detection of the event does not trigger radio link failure” of claim 31 and similarly for claim 21.
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 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
Prosecution Insights