DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 102/103
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues regarding claim 3, now incorporated into claim 1, that secondary reference to Raghavan ¶0087 teaches radio link metrics but not QoS metrics thus fails to teach uplink traffic quality of service below a threshold.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that the cited portion of Raghavan pertained to several limitations in the list of options, for example the degradation of link quality may correspond to the claimed “uplink or downlink link imbalance” under broadest reasonable interpretation as the claim does not further indicate what this entails. The rejection is maintained as the same cited portion applies to multiple options.
Applicant did provide an argument regarding claim 14 and claim 16, thus the rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8, 12, 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 20230284312 A1, hereinafter ‘312) in view of Raghavan et al. (“Raghavan”) (WO 2021154691 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ‘312 teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured [Figure 1 shows UE] to:
monitor for an uplink radio link failure condition between the UE and a network entity [Figure 1, detection of RLF during RLF timer, see ¶0090, ¶0104, upon “upon indication of consistent uplink LBT failures from MCG MAC” thus uplink LBT failures are monitored corresponding to uplink radio link failure condition];
terminate a connection with the network entity based on a detection of the uplink radio link failure condition [Figure 1, detection of RLF during RLF timer, see ¶0090, ¶0104, upon “upon indication of consistent uplink LBT failures from MCG MAC” thus uplink LBT failures are monitored corresponding to uplink radio link failure condition, ¶0108 consider RLF detected, and later ¶0161 shows switching to IDLE thus releasing connection];
reestablish a new connection on a same frequency or a different frequency with the network entity or a second network entity [¶0171-172, reestablish with new network / cell, and Examiner notes it uses a frequency thus must be a same or different as this encompasses every possibility ¶0115 shows stored frequencies]; and transmit an uplink radio link failure report with an uplink failure cause value based on the uplink radio link failure condition [¶0173 UE includes RLF report to send to network, ¶0180-185, table 3, UEinformationresponse includes RLF report and rlf-case, see page 14, RLF report field descriptions, including cause of last failure].
‘312 teaches detecting uplink failure condition but not specifically thresholds/quality metrics for detection.
Raghavan teaches wherein the uplink radio link failure condition comprises at least one of: duplicated physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) retransmissions due to an acknowledgement (ACK) mis-detected as non-acknowledgement (NACK) on uplink; uplink traffic data stall in a UE buffer; transmit a first timing difference between multiple transmit antennas; transmit a second timing difference between uplink component carriers having a same timing advance group; uplink radio link control (RLC) status stall in the UE buffer; uplink medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MAC-CE) stall in the UE buffer; uplink or downlink link imbalance; [¶0085 “The separate RLM processes may be used to monitor beam quality for both the uplink and downlink beams, and may be used at the UE 115-b to determine that one of the uplink or downlink beams is experiencing a quality degradation or an RLE Based on the determination of a quality degradation that exceeds a threshold, and an RLF indication 315 may be provided to the base station 105-a” considered uplink or downlink link imbalance i.e. one experiencing degradation]; uplink traffic quality of service (QoS) below a threshold; lack of receipt of an uplink grant in response to a scheduling request transmission transmitted one or more times with a maximum UE transmission power; a first detected or suspected mismatch of a connected mode discontinuous reception (C-DRX) between the UE and the network entity detected by the UE; or a second detected or suspected mismatch of an active bandwidth part (BWP) between the UE and the network entity detected by the UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify a quality or imbalance detection for reporting RLF. ‘312 teaches LBT uplink as an example for performing reestablishment and it would have been a simple substitution of parts to replace this with the uplink imbalance detection of Raghavan for determining RLF as in ¶0085 in order to identify a new connection with better quality and avoid quality degradation ¶0085.
Regarding claim 2, ‘312-Raghavan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor [‘312 ¶0439-441].
Regarding claim 6, ‘312-Raghavan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to terminate the connection based on the detection of the uplink radio link failure condition, the at least one processor is configured to: initiate a radio resource control (RRC) connection reestablish procedure with or without receiving an indication to transition to a target cell or a target frequency [‘312 ¶0171-172, reestablish to a new cell via RRC with or without receiving indication as these are the only two possibilities].
Regarding claim 8, 12, see similar rejections for claim 1 and 6 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 28, ‘312-Raghavan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the uplink radio link failure condition comprises at least one of: the first timing difference between the multiple transmit antennas, the second timing difference between the uplink component carriers having the same timing advance group,; the uplink or downlink link imbalance, or the lack of the receipt of the uplink grant in response to the scheduling request transmission transmitted the one or more times with the maximum UE transmission power [Raghavan ¶0085 “The separate RLM processes may be used to monitor beam quality for both the uplink and downlink beams, and may be used at the UE 115-b to determine that one of the uplink or downlink beams is experiencing a quality degradation or an RLE Based on the determination of a quality degradation that exceeds a threshold, and an RLF indication 315 may be provided to the base station 105-a” considered uplink or downlink link imbalance i.e. one experiencing degradation see rationale for combination as in claim 1].
Claim(s) 14-15, 17-18, 20, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (“Hwang”) (US 20210266811 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hwang teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to: communicate with a user equipment (UE) [¶0185, MN communicates with UE in PSCELL]; and receive a request to release a connection with the UE [¶0185, UE declares RLF for Scell, releases Scell,and sends SCGFailure Information to MN “so that the MN 2b-3 may release a current secondary node (SN) and add a new SN 2b-4 (2b-8)” thus considered request to release a connection], the request indicating a cause based on a detection of an uplink radio link failure condition [¶0185, SCGFailureInformation considered to indicate cause being SCG failure, and may be based on uplink radio link failure condition, see ¶0180 “a method of detecting a Scell failure due to malfunction at an RLC layer, and identifying the Scell failure through downlink radio link monitoring (RLM) and transmitting a result of the identification to a gNB will be described. Regarding the malfunction at the RLC layer, a problem of a corresponding Scell may be identified when uplink traffic occurs but cannot be identified when a channel between a gNB and a UE deteriorates without uplink traffic”],
wherein the uplink radio link failure condition comprises at least one of: duplicated physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) retransmissions due to an acknowledgement (ACK) mis-detected as non-acknowledgement (NACK) on uplink; uplink traffic data stall in a UE buffer; transmit a first timing difference between multiple transmit antennas; transmit a second timing difference between uplink component carriers having a same timing advance group; uplink radio link control (RLC) status stall in the UE buffer; uplink medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MAC-CE) stall in the UE buffer; uplink or downlink link imbalance [¶0180 “a method of detecting a Scell failure due to malfunction at an RLC layer, and identifying the Scell failure through downlink radio link monitoring (RLM) and transmitting a result of the identification to a gNB will be described. Regarding the malfunction at the RLC layer, a problem of a corresponding Scell may be identified when uplink traffic occurs but cannot be identified when a channel between a gNB and a UE deteriorates without uplink traffic” considered an uplink imbalance as the claim does not further teach this term as spec describes uplink and downlink imbalance but the claim only recites uplink OR downlink imbalance]; uplink traffic quality of service (QoS) below a threshold; lack of receipt of an uplink grant in response to a scheduling request transmission transmitted one or more times with a maximum UE transmission power; a first detected or suspected mismatch of a connected mode discontinuous reception (C-DRX) between the UE and the network entity detected by the UE; or a second detected or suspected mismatch of an active bandwidth part (BWP) between the UE and the network entity detected by the UE.
Regarding claim 15, Hwang teaches:
The apparatus of claim 14, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor [¶0170-176].
Regarding claim 17, Hwang teaches:
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: provide, in response to the request to release the connection, an indication for the UE to transition to a target cell or a target frequency to establish a new connection [¶0185 the MN 2b-3 transmits the configuration information to the UE 2b-1 through RRC reconfiguration (2b-9), wherein configuration is for UE from the new SN in order for UE to synchronize to new SN].
Regarding claim 18, Hwang teaches:
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: request an uplink radio link failure report based on an uplink radio link failure indication [¶0142, a previous RLF situation is also reported according to a request from a base station when an LTE cell is accessed, ¶0180 wherein RLF may be uplink RLF].
Regarding claim 20, 22-23, see similar rejections for claims 14, 17-18 respectively which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Claim(s) 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 20230284312 A1, hereinafter ‘312) in view of Raghavan et al. (“Raghavan”) (WO 2021154691 A1), Khirallah et al. (“Khirallah”) (US 20240049171 A1, effective filing date of foreign application with priority date August 8, 2022).
Regarding claim 4, ‘312-Raghavan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1.
‘312 teaches terminating the link but not requesting release.
Khirallah teaches wherein to terminate the connection based on the detection of the uplink radio link failure condition, the at least one processor is configured to: request a connection release that indicates a cause based on the detection of an uplink radio link failure cause value [¶0270, “the UE may […] request an RRC release from the network (e.g. in order to release UE context in the network). The UE may also indicate to the network the reason/cause for triggering the release (e.g., new cause value, insufficientTimeToCompleteProc, failureToCompleteProc, uEReleaseFailureToCompleteProc, other suitable naming”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify requesting the release for the connection as in Khirallah. ‘312 teaches releasing a connection but not requesting release and it would have been obvious to incorporate this message as in Khirallah who teaches this addresses problems with insufficient time for RRC procedures ¶0269.
Regarding claim 10, see similar rejection for claim 4 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding step.
Claim(s) 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 20230284312 A1, hereinafter ‘312) in view of Raghavan et al. (“Raghavan”) (WO 2021154691 A1), Khirallah et al. (“Khirallah”) (US 20240049171 A1, effective filing date of foreign application with priority date August 8, 2022) and Hahn et al. (“Hahn”) (US 20090307496 A1).
Regarding claim 5, ‘312-Raghavan-Khirallah teaches:
The apparatus of claim 4.
‘312-Khirallah teaches sending a message for release with a cause value but not a response with target identifier, however Examiner notes that this is similar to the process of a sending a handover request for the purpose of releasing one connection and connecting to another station, and receiving a response.
Hahn teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, in response to requesting the connection release, an indication to transition to a target cell or target frequency to establish the new connection is received from the network entity [¶0141, UE sends handover request for switching to another cell, and base station sends response with target base station identifier corresponding to indication].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify indicating transition to the target cell as in Hahn. ‘312 teaches releasing a connection and moving to a target and it would have been obvious to specify the response with target cell information as in Hahn in order that a serving cell may be changed based on changing radio conditions ¶0140.
Regarding claim 11, see similar rejection for claim 5 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding step.
Claim(s) 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 20230284312 A1, hereinafter ‘312) in view of Raghavan et al. (“Raghavan”) (WO 2021154691 A1), Belleschi et al. (“Belleschi”) (US 20230171810 A1).
Regarding claim 7, ‘312-Raghavan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1.
‘312 teaches detecting uplink failure but not MDT.
Belleschi wherein the uplink radio link failure report is comprised within a minimization of drive test (MDT) and indicates an uplink radio link failure cause per network request during or after radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment [¶0091, MDT to collect data and report it].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify MDT for uplink radio failure report. ‘312 teaches uplink radio link failure report and it would have been obvious to specify MDT as in Belleschi as it would have been a simple substitution of parts to replace the reporting of ‘312 with MDT who teaches this is one of several types of reporting for reporting collected data to the network regarding failure.
Regarding claim 13, see similar rejection for claim 7 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding step.
Claim(s) 19, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (“Hwang”) (US 20210266811 A1) in view of Belleschi et al. (“Belleschi”) (US 20230171810 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Hwang teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1.
Hwang teaches detecting uplink failure but not MDT.
Belleschi wherein the uplink radio link failure report is comprised within a minimization of drive test (MDT) and indicates an uplink radio link failure cause per network request during or after radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment [¶0091, MDT to collect data and report it].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify MDT for uplink radio failure report. Hwang teaches uplink radio link failure report and it would have been obvious to specify MDT as in Belleschi as it would have been a simple substitution of parts to replace the reporting of ‘312 with MDT who teaches this is one of several types of reporting for reporting collected data to the network regarding failure.
Regarding claim 24, see similar rejection for claim 19 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding step.
Claim(s) 26-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 20230284312 A1, hereinafter ‘312) in view of Raghavan et al. (“Raghavan”) (WO 2021154691 A1) and Kanamarlapudi et al. (“Kanamarlapudi”) (US 20210251033 A1).
Regarding claim 26, ‘312-Raghavan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1.
‘312 teaches RLF but not based on stall.
Kanamarlapudi teaches wherein the uplink radio link failure condition comprises at least one of: the uplink traffic data stall in the UE buffer [¶0123, timer expires prompting UE to declare RLF, timer may expire if “a lack of data transmission in UL” considered a stall in UE buffer as neither the claims nor specification further define this], the uplink RLC status stall in the UE buffer, or the uplink MAC-CE stall in the UE buffer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify RLF based on buffer stall. Examiner notes neither the claimed invention nor the specification further describes the “Stall” thus it could be considered a lack of transmission from the buffer in the UE as in Kanamarlapudi who teaches this allows for expediting RRC connection procedure after RLF is declared ¶0123.
Regarding claim 27, ‘312-Raghavan teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1.
‘312 teaches RLF but not based on mismatch.
Kanamarlapudi teaches wherein the uplink radio link failure condition comprises at least one of: a first mismatch of the connected mode C-DRX between the UE and the network entity detected by the UE; or a mismatch of the active BWP between the UE and the network entity detected by the UE [¶0123, timer expires prompting UE to declare RLF, timer may expire if mismatch in BWP configuration].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify RLF based on buffer stall. Examiner notes neither the claimed invention nor the specification further describes the “Stall” thus it could be considered a lack of transmission from the buffer in the UE as in Kanamarlapudi who teaches this allows for expediting RRC connection procedure after RLF is declared ¶0123.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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.
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights