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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yan et al (US 2024/0422632 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yan discloses a radio communication method performed by a User Equipment (UE) (Figs. 2 and 5), the radio communication method comprising:
determining that a Listen Before Talk (LBT) procedure is to be performed in accordance with a received target instruction, wherein the target instruction is used to indicate the UE to handover from a source cell to a first target cell in a spectrum-sharing network (Fig. 2, block 201 and 76th paragraph, the source node transmits a handover command to the UE. Since the UE is operating in the unlicensed spectrum, the UE would perform LBT before transmitting an access message to the target node. The unlicensed spectrum is the shared spectrum in a network and/or Fig. 5, block 501); and
when an LBT failure occurs in an access procedure to the first target cell, recording LBT failure information in at least one of a Radio Link Failure (RLF) report, a random access report, or a Successful Handover Report (SHR) in accordance with a handover result (80th paragraph and/or Fig. 5, blocks 502 and 503, LBT information and HOF information are determined and transmitted to the serving node of the UE when a handover failure occurs (HOF). According to 115th, 116th, and 152nd paragraphs, the HOF may be included in RLF report or handover failed related information in Var RLF report or RRC message or MAC CE).
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Yan discloses that wherein the recording the LBT failure information in the RLF report in accordance with the handover result comprises, when the handover result indicates a handover failure, recording first result information in the RLF report, and the first result information indicates that the handover failure is caused by continuous LBT failures on all Bandwidth Parts (BWPs) (81st, 83rd, and 88th paragraphs, the LBT information may include two and/or three and/or four consistent LBT failures in BWPs and/or total number of BWPs where LBT failure detection and recovery is performed in target cell when timer is running) or wherein the recording the LBT failure information in at least one of the RLF report, the random access report, or the successful handover report in accordance with the handover result comprises, when the handover result indicates a handover success, recording second result information in at least one of the RLF report, the random access report or the successful handover port, and the second result information is random access information indicating an LBT failure eon at least one BWP before the handover success (alternative).
Regarding claims 5 and 22, Yan discloses that wherein the first result information is recorded in the RLF report in the form of first specified identification information (115th and/or 116th paragraphs, RLF report and/or Var RLF report. RLF has a specified format including identification information) or wherein the first result information further comprises random access information indicating an LBT failure of the UE on all the BWPs (88th paragraphs, the LBT information may include total number of BWPs where LBT failure detection and recovery is performed in target cell).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Yan discloses that wherein the random access information comprises at least one of: a Random Access Channel (RACH) frequency resource used in each random access procedure (6th paragraph, the LBT information includes random access channel occasions for each BWP); at least one of a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB), a downlink Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) index (alternative), or information about the number of random access preambles transmitted in the SSB and the CSI-RS index involved in each random access procedure (alternative); indication information indicating whether cell signal quality in each random access preamble in each random access procedure is greater than an SSB threshold and indication information indicating whether a contention-based random access procedure is detected in each random access preamble (alternative); indication information indicating whether each preamble in a 2-step random access procedure falls back to a 4-step random access procedure (alternative); cell signal quality measured before the 2-step random access procedure; identification information comprising whether continuous LBT failures occurs in the LBT procedure before each random access procedure (alternative); or the number of LBT failures in multiple random access preambles in the random access procedure for the target cell (alternative).
Regarding claims 15 and 28, Yan discloses that wherein the number of LBT failures in multiple random access preambles (163rd – 165th paragraphs, LBT failure indication includes target cell’s BWP receiving preamble) comprises at least one of the number of LBT failures on each beam (135th paragraph, RLF report includes beam identity where RACH access attempt during handover) or the total number of LBT failures on all beams.
Regarding claim 17, Yan discloses a User Equipment (UE) (Fig. 9), comprising a memory (Fig. 9, medium), a transceiver (Fig. 9, transmitting circuitry) and a processor (Fig. 8, processor), wherein the memory is configured to store therein a computer program, and the transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data under the control of the processor (Fig. 9),
wherein the processor is configured to read the computer program in the memory, so as to perform the following operations (Fig. 9):
determining that a Listen Before Talk (LBT) is to be performed in accordance with a received target instruction, wherein the target instruction is used to indicate the UE to handover from a source cell to a first target cell in a spectrum-sharing network (Fig. 2, block 201 and 76th paragraph, the source node transmits a handover command to the UE. Since the UE is operating in the unlicensed spectrum, the UE would perform LBT before transmitting an access message to the target node. The unlicensed spectrum is the shared spectrum in a network and/or Fig. 5, block 501); and
when an LBT failure occurs in an access procedure to the first target cell, recording LBT failure information in at least one of a Radio Link Failure (RLF) report, a random access report, or a Successful Handover Report (SHR) in accordance with a handover result (80th paragraph and/or Fig. 5, blocks 502 and 503, LBT information and HOF information are determined and transmitted to the serving node of the UE when a handover failure occurs (HOF). According to 115th, 116th, and 152nd paragraphs, the HOF may be included in RLF report or handover failed related information in Var RLF report or RRC message or MAC CE).
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.
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.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Ozturk et al (US 2021/0176681 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Yan discloses that the LBT information may include measurement result, e.g., RSRP, RSRQ, and SINR, associated with a target cell and a source cell (6th and 101st paragraphs). Yan does not disclose recording Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) measurement results of the source cell and a neighboring cell or identification information about the source cell and the neighboring cell indicating whether a channel has been occupied (alternative). Ozturk discloses that the UE performs measurement and transmits a measurement report to the source gNB, the measurement report may include RSSI parameter (104th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RSSI measurement in Yan’s system, as suggested by Ozturk, to indicate total power across the bandwidth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 11-12, 21, 23, 26 and 27 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 16 that Yan fails to mention about the source cell and the first target cell are in a spectrum sharing network. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yan discloses in new radio unlicensed spectrum, base stations and user equipment may operate in both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. In order to achieve fair coexistence with other wireless systems, a channel access procedure, e.g., LBT is required before the BS or the UE starts the transmission on unlicensed spectrum (2nd, 41st, 42nd, and 76th paragraphs and Fig. 1). In other words, many wireless systems coexist and use the same unlicensed spectrum, LBT is required to avoid collisions. This is a spectrum sharing network.
Applicant argues in page 17 that Yan fails to mention recording the LBT failure information in at least one of a Radio Link Failure (RLF) report, a random access report, or a Successful Handover Report (SHR) in accordance with a handover result. Basically, Yan stores LBT information in the HOF report. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yan discloses that LBT information and HOF information are determined and transmitted to the serving node of the UE when a handover failure occurs (HOF) (80th paragraph and/or Fig. 5, blocks 502 and 503). Yan also discloses that the HOF may be included in RLF report or handover failed related information in Var RLF report or RRC message or MAC CE (115th, 116th, and 152nd paragraphs). Herein, the RLF report includes HOF having the stored LBT information.
Applicant argues in pages 19 and 20 that it is not obvious to combine Ozturk’s teaching in Yan. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Yan discloses that the LBT information may include measurement result, e.g., RSRP, RSRQ, and SINR, associated with a target cell and a source cell (6th and 101st paragraphs). Yan does not disclose reporting RSSI measurement. Ozturk discloses that the UE performs measurement and transmits a measurement report to the source gNB, the measurement report may include RSSI parameter (104th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RSSI measurement in Yan’s system, as suggested by Ozturk, to indicate total power across the bandwidth.
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 ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472