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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on November 27, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
4. Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
6. In accordance with MPEP 2111.04, the claim language of claim 69 suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’”
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 50-52, 57-61, and 67-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0073755 A1) in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0030476 A1).
Regarding claim 50, Yan et al. teach a method for a user equipment (UE) configured to communicate with a wireless network via a primary cell (PCell) and one or more secondary cells (SCells) (Fig.1), the method comprising:
receiving, from the wireless network (Fig.1 @ 102-A and 102-B), a plurality of configurations for a corresponding plurality of candidate PCells (read as “the UE receiving a configuration signaling including first configuration information or second configuration information.”(Fig(s).1 and 8 @ receiving circuitry; Paragraph [0163]));
selecting one of the configurations upon occurrence of a failure event (read as predefined criteria) in a first cell configured as the PCell (read as “… a cell selection procedure based on a predefined criteria to select a cell as a second target PCell among a cell group at least including: a set of candidate PSCells associated with the first target PCell, the one or more candidate PCells, and each corresponding set of candidate PSCells associated with the one or more candidate PCells. ”(Paragraph [0167])); and
However, Yan et al. fail to explicitly teach switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration.
Park et al. teach a method for switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration. (read as “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claim 59, Yan et al. teach a method for a network node configured to communicate with a user equipment (UE) via a primary cell (PCell) and one or more secondary cells (SCells) in a wireless network, the method comprising:
sending, to the UE (Fig.1 @ 101), a plurality of configurations for a corresponding plurality of candidate PCells (read as “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0037]) For example, “the UE receiving a configuration signaling including first configuration information or second configuration information.”(Fig(s).1 and 8 @ receiving circuitry; Paragraph [0163]));
selecting one of the configurations upon occurrence of a failure event in a first cell configured as the PCell (read as “… a cell selection procedure based on a predefined criteria to select a cell as a second target PCell among a cell group at least including: a set of candidate PSCells associated with the first target PCell, the one or more candidate PCells, and each corresponding set of candidate PSCells associated with the one or more candidate PCells. ”(Paragraph [0167])); and
However, Yan et al. fail to explicitly teach switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration.
Park et al. teach a method for switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration. (read as “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claim 69, Yan et al. teach a user equipment (UE) configured to communicate with a wireless network via a primary cell (PCell) and one or more secondary cells (SCells) (Fig(s).1 and 8), the UE comprising:
communication interface circuitry configured to communicate with the wireless network via the PCell and the one or more SCells (Fig(s).1 and 8 @ receiving circuitry and transmitting circuitry); and
processing circuitry operably coupled to the communication interface circuitry (Fig.8 @ processor),
whereby the communication interface circuitry and processing circuitry (Fig.8) are configured to:
receive, from the wireless network (Fig.1 @ 102-A and 102-B), a plurality of configurations for a corresponding plurality of candidate PCells (read as “the UE receiving a configuration signaling including first configuration information or second configuration information.”(Fig(s).1 and 8 @ receiving circuitry; Paragraph [0163]));
select one of the configurations upon occurrence of a failure event in a first cell configured as the PCell (read as “… a cell selection procedure based on a predefined criteria to select a cell as a second target PCell among a cell group at least including: a set of candidate PSCells associated with the first target PCell, the one or more candidate PCells, and each corresponding set of candidate PSCells associated with the one or more candidate PCells. ”(Paragraph [0167])); and
However, Yan et al. fail to explicitly teach the step to switch the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration.
Park et al. teach a method to switch the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration. (read as “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 51 and 60, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al. teach a method wherein:
the one or more SCells include a second cell that is configured as an active SCell before the failure event (read as an SCG SCells (Paragraph [0070])); and
However, Yan et al. fail to explicitly teach the method further comprises, based on switching the PCell to the candidate PCell, switching the active SCell from the second cell to a candidate SCell associated with the candidate PCell.
Park et al. teach the method further comprises, based on switching the PCell to the candidate PCell, switching the active SCell from the second cell to a candidate SCell associated with the candidate PCell. (read as “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 52 and 61, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al., as modified by Park et al., teach a method wherein each of the plurality of configurations has one or more of the following characteristics:
corresponds to a candidate PCell that is different than the first cell (read as PCell (Abstract));
includes one or more candidate SCells that are different than currently active SCells (read as an SCG SCells (Paragraph [0070]));
facilitates sending an indication about a PCell failure event to the wireless network (Fig.8 @ transmitting circuitry);
facilitates switching PCell without performing a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration procedure (read as “performing data transmission with the target PSCell without triggering a RRC re-establishment procedure.”(Paragraph [0016])); and
facilitates switching at least one currently active SCell without performing an RRC reconfiguration procedure. (read as “performing a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to the second target PCell.”(Paragraph [0008]))
Regarding claims 57 and 67, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al., as modified by Park et al., teach a method wherein one or more of the following applies:
the candidate PCell of the selected configuration is a currently active SCell or a configured but currently inactive SCell (read as an SCG SCells (Paragraph [0070])); and
switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell of the selected configuration is performed without a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration procedure. (read as “performing data transmission with the target PSCell without triggering a RRC re-establishment procedure.”(Paragraph [0016]))
Regarding claims 58 and 68, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al., as modified by Park et al., teach a method wherein selecting one of the configurations is based on one or more of the following:
measurements by the UE in the respective candidate PCells of the plurality of configurations; (read as a measurement report (Paragraph [0113]))
respective selection criteria included in the plurality of configurations (read as a predefined criteria (Paragraph [0167])); and
whether use of the respective configurations require radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration procedures. (read as “performing a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to the second target PCell.”(Paragraph [0008]))
Regarding claim 70, Yan et al. teach a network node configured to communicate with a user equipment, UE via a primary cell (PCell) and one or more secondary cells (SCells) in a wireless network (Fig.1 @ 102-A and 102-B),
However, Yan et al. fail to explicitly teach the network node comprising:
communication interface circuitry configured to communicate with the UE via the PCell and the one or more SCells; and
processing circuitry operably coupled to the communication interface circuitry,
whereby the communication interface circuitry and the processing circuitry are configured to perform the method of claim 59.
Park et al. teach the network node (Fig(s).1 @ 110-1, 110-2, 110-3 and 2 @ 200) comprising:
communication interface circuitry configured to communicate with the UE via the PCell and the one or more SCells (Fig(s).1 and 2 @ 230); and
processing circuitry operably coupled to the communication interface circuitry (Fig.2 @ 210 and 230),
whereby the communication interface circuitry and the processing circuitry are configured to perform the method of claim 59.(Fig(s).1-2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the base station computer hardware and the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Claims 53-56 and 62-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0073755 A1), in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0030476 A1), and Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0400373 A1).
Regarding claims 53 and 62, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037]) Also, Yan et al. teach a method wherein the failure event is radio link failure (RLF) (read as RLF (Paragraph(s) [0089] and [0109])) and
on one or more of the following:
in-sync and out-of-sync indications from the UE's physical layer; and
measurements made by the UE in the first cell. (read as a measurement report (Paragraph [0113]))
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al. and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach the method further comprises predicting the RLF in the first cell based on a machine learning (ML) model and
Zhu et al. teach the method further comprises predicting the RLF in the first cell based on a machine learning (ML) model (read as “a capability to perform an (ML-based) radio link failure (RLF) …”(Paragraph [0067])) and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF as taught by Zhu et al. and the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 54 and 63, and as applied to claims 53 and 62 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037]) Also, Yan et al. teach a method further comprises sending an indication of the predicted RLF to the wireless network (Fig(s).1 and 8 @ transmitting circuitry),
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al. and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein one or more of the following applies:
the indication of the predicted RLF is sent at least a preconfigured duration before a predicted time of the RLF; and
the indication of the predicted RLF includes a predicted time of the RLF.
Zhu et al. teach a method wherein one or more of the following applies:
the indication of the predicted RLF is sent at least a preconfigured duration before a predicted time of the RLF (read as a UE capability indication (Paragraph [0067])); and
the indication of the predicted RLF includes a predicted time of the RLF. (read as a UE capability indication (Paragraph [0067]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF based on a received UE capability indication as taught by Zhu et al. and the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claim 64, and as applied to claim 59 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037]) Also, Yan et al. teach a method wherein the failure event is radio link failure (RLF) (read as RLF (Paragraph(s) [0089] and [0109])) and
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al. and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach the method further comprises receiving from the UE an indication of the RLF predicted by the UE based on a machine learning (ML) model.
Zhu et al. teach the method further comprises receiving from the UE an indication of the RLF predicted by the UE based on a machine learning (ML) model. (read as “the radio capability of the UE may indicate a capability of the UE to perform one or more wireless communications management procedures, which may be ML-based.”(Fig(s).1 and 7 @ 720; Paragraph [0067]) Also, the UE has “a capability to perform an (ML-based) radio link failure (RLF) …”(Paragraph [0067]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF based on a received UE capability indication as taught by Zhu et al. and the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 55 and 65, and as applied to claims 53 and 64 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037])
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al. and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach receiving the ML model from the wireless network and sending to the UE the ML model used by the UE to predict the RLF in the first cell,
wherein the received ML model includes one or more of the following:
a prediction accuracy for the ML model;
an indication of whether the UE should report accuracy of RLF predictions based on the ML model;
duration of applicability for the ML model; how far in advance the UE should report an RLF predicted based on the ML model; and
whether the UE should report an RLF duration predicted based on the ML model.
Zhu et al. teach a method further comprising receiving the ML model from the wireless network and sending to the UE the ML model used by the UE to predict the RLF in the first cell (Fig.1),
wherein the ML model sent to the UE includes one or more of the following:
a prediction accuracy for the ML model;
an indication of whether the UE should report accuracy of RLF predictions based on the ML model (read as a UE capability indication (Paragraph [0067]));
duration of applicability for the ML model; how far in advance the UE should report an RLF predicted based on the ML model; and
whether the UE should report an RLF duration predicted based on the ML model.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF based on a received UE capability indication as taught by Zhu et al. and the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 56 and 66, and as applied to claims 53 and 64 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037])
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al. and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach training an initial ML model received from the wireless network to obtain the ML model used for predicting the RLF and sending to the UE an initial ML model to be trained by the UE to obtain the ML model used by the UE to predict the RLF,
wherein the initial ML model sent to the UE includes a duration that the UE should train the initial ML model.
Zhu et al. teach a method further comprising training an initial ML model received from the wireless network to obtain the ML model used for predicting the RLF and sending to the UE an initial ML model to be trained by the UE to obtain the ML model used by the UE to predict the RLF (Fig(s).1-2),
wherein the initial ML model sent to the UE includes a duration that the UE should train the initial ML model. (read as a UE capability indication (Paragraph [0067]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF based on a received UE capability indication as taught by Zhu et al. and the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
R2-1907094 (“Discussion on fast HO failure recovery”, 13th-17th May 2019) document teaches “Upon initiating the procedure, the UE performs cell selection (including reading MIB&SIB1) and re-establishes the RRC connection with the selected cell. The RRC connection can be successfully re-established only if the selected cell is prepared (with the valid UE context), or the network is able to fetch the valid UE context from the source cell.”(Section 2, page 1)
R2-1906292 (“Failure handling on HO”, 13th-17th May 2019) document teaches “If the UE has multiple valid HO commands upon expiry of T304, the UE selects the best prepared candidate cell from a set of cells that satisfy the existing S criteria for cell selection. The set of cells can include the source cell and prepared candidate cells, but excludes the cell which resulted in the T304 expiry..” (Section 2, page 2)
Sun et al. (“Application of Machine Learning in Wireless Networks: Key Techniques and Open Issues”, 2021) teach “… recent advances of the applications of ML in wireless communication, which are classified as: resource management in the MAC layer, networking and mobility management in the network layer, and localization in the application layer. The applications in resource management further include power control, spectrum management, backhaul management, cache management, and beamformer design and computation resource management, while ML-based networking focuses on the applications in clustering, base station switching control, user association, and routing.”(Abstract)
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
January 23, 2026