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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 15, 2026 has been entered.
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 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 27, 20, 22, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US 2024/0422632 A1) in view of Wu et al (US 2023/0422135 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),
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 (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).
Yan does not disclose that 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 report, and the second result information is random access information indicating an LBT failure on at least one Bandwidth Part (BWP) before the handover success. Wu discloses that the UE may report assistant information related to a successful handover and the information includes LBT failures detected on UL BWP (100th, 105th, and 151st paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include LBT failure on BWP in Yan’s system, as suggested by Wu, to prevent BWP from further use.
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 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).
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),
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 (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).
Yan does not disclose that 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 report, and the second result information is random access information indicating an LBT failure on at least one Bandwidth Part (BWP) before the handover success. Wu discloses that the UE may report assistant information related to a successful handover and the information includes LBT failures detected on UL BWP (100th, 105th, and 151st paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include LBT failure on BWP in Yan’s system, as suggested by Wu, to prevent BWP from further use.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan and Wu further 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 with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, and 20-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights