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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 41-45, 48-51, 53-57, 60-63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino et al. (12,185,402) in view of Ma et al. (12,273,776).
For claims 41, 48, 53. 60, Orsino teaches an apparatus (and related method) (abstract), comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions (col. 18, lines 40-55), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform (background, summary and claims), at least:
by a master node (col. 6, lines 40-65) configured for wireless communication (col. 18, lines 20-40) with a user equipment (col. 6, lines 20-40) and for communication with one or more secondary nodes (col. 6, lines 40-65), after receiving an indication from the user equipment that a cell group failure has occurred (col. 14, lines 60 – col. 15, line 45), determining by the master node which node of at least the master node or a last serving secondary node or another secondary node is responsible for the secondary cell group failure (col. 14, lines 15-40); and
based on outcome of the determining, performing by the master node an analysis for mobility (col. 19, lines 45-65) robustness (col. 1, lines 25-35) for the secondary cell group failure where the master node was responsible for the secondary cell group failure (col. 10, lines 1-35).
Orsino does not expressly disclose that a secondary cell group failure has occurred. Ma teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 8, lines 45-67). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Ma in order to provide improvements to handling secondary node changes in a master node cell failure manner (col. 3, lines 25-65).
For claims 42, 49, 54, 61, Ma teaches wherein determining which node is responsible for the secondary cell group failure further comprises determining by the master node the last serving secondary node is the node responsible for the secondary cell group failure (col. 16, lines 15-25), based on communication with the last serving secondary node (col. 11, line 40 – col. 12, line 15) indicating the last serving secondary node was responsible for the secondary cell group failure (col. 12, line 55 – col. 13, line 25); or determining which node is responsible for the secondary cell group failure further comprises determining by the master node the last serving secondary node is not the node responsible for the secondary cell group failure, based on communication with the secondary node indicating the last serving secondary node was not responsible for the secondary cell group failure (col. 16, lines 15-25).
For claims 43, 50, 55, 62, Orsino teaches further perform: sending by the master node information corresponding to the secondary cell group failure toward the last serving secondary node; and wherein the determining by the master node the last serving secondary node is the node responsible for the secondary cell group failure comprises:
receiving, by the master node from the last serving secondary node, information comprising one or both of an indication the last serving secondary node was involved in an intra-node cell change without notifying the master node or an identification of the last serving cell that was involved in the secondary cell group failure (col. 14, lines 15-45).
For claims 44, 56, Ma teaches further perform: sending by the master node a message asking the last serving secondary node whether the last serving secondary node performed an intra-node cell change without notifying the master node; and wherein the determining by the master node the last serving secondary node is the node responsible for the secondary cell group failure comprises:
receiving, by the master node from the last serving secondary node, information comprising one or both of an indication the last serving secondary node was involved in the intra-node cell change without notifying the master node or an identification of the last serving cell that was involved in the secondary cell group failure (col. 13, line 45 – col. 14, line 40); and
sending by the master node information corresponding to the secondary cell group failure toward the last serving secondary node (col. 14, lines 40-60).
For claims 45, 57, Ma teaches wherein when it is determined by the master node the last serving secondary node is the node responsible for the secondary cell group failure, the analysis by the master node for mobility robustness for the secondary cell group failure determines the secondary node is to perform the analysis for mobility robustness for the secondary cell group failure (col. 18, lines 15-50).
Claims 51, 63 are taught by the combination of claims 44 and 45.
Claim(s) 46, 52, 58, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orisno and Ma as applied to claims 42, 49, 54, 61 above, and further in view of Ramachandra et al. (12,244,492).
For claims 46, 52, 58, 64, Orisno and Ma do not expressly disclose the limitations. Ramachandra teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) to further perform: sending by the master node information corresponding to the secondary cell group failure toward the last serving secondary node, or sending by the master node a message asking the last serving secondary node whether the last serving secondary node performed an intra-node cell change without notifying the master node toward the last serving secondary node; and
receiving, by the master node from the last serving secondary node, information comprising an indication the last serving secondary node was not involved in an intra-node cell change without notifying the master node (col. 9, line 15 – col. 10, line 5), wherein the performing by the master node an analysis where the master node was responsible in the secondary cell group failure comprises using the received information in an analysis by the master node for mobility robustness (col. 31, line 60 – col. 32, line 15), in response to the received information indicating that the last serving secondary node was not involved in the intra-node cell change without notifying the master node (col. 13, line 65 – col. 14, line 65).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Ramachandra in order to provide improvements to link quality monitoring (col. 6, lines 40-65).
For claims 47, 59, Ramachandra teaches determining by the master node which node of at least the master node or the last serving secondary node or another secondary node is responsible for the secondary cell group failure further comprises determining by the master node the other secondary node is responsible for the secondary cell group failure and sending by the master node failure information for the secondary cell group failure toward the other secondary node (col. 9, line 15 – col. 10, line 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445