DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the amendment and arguments filed on May 29, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims (see Office Action).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasamy et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0219646, hereinafter Ramasamy, in view of Pulpatta et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0189446, hereinafter Pulpatta.
Regarding Claim 1, Ramasamy discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Abstract; Figure 4-6 and 9), configured to cause the UE to:
receive a reconfiguration message wherein the reconfiguration message includes a configuration error in configuration information (508 and 608 of Figure 5 and 6; Paragraph [0054-0064] the UE 102 receives a downlink RRC message for transition of the RRC state, in step 508. The transition of the RRC state may be one of a Physical Channel Reconfiguration, Transport Channel Reconfiguration, or Radio Bearer Reconfiguration. In step 510, the UE 102 rejects the transition of the RRC state by triggering a Physical Channel Reconfiguration Failure (PCRF). The failure uplink RRC message may be associated with one of a PCRF, Transport Channel Reconfiguration Failure, and Radio Bearer Reconfiguration Failure. After receiving the PCRF with the existing failure cause ‘configuration unsupported’ or ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’, the UTRAN 104 returns to the previous RRC state, in step 614);
and transmit a reconfiguration error message that indicates the configuration error (512 and 612 of Figure 5 and 6; Paragraph [0054-0064] The PCRF may be triggered by sending the failure uplink RRC message, in step 612. The failure uplink RRC message may be associated with one of the PCRF, Transport Channel Reconfiguration Failure, and Radio Bearer Reconfiguration Failure. In step 610, the UE 102 may trigger the PCRF by associating the PCRF with an existing failure cause. The existing failure cause may be one of a ‘configuration unsupported’ or an ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’. Since the PCRF is triggered by the UE 102, the UE 102 remains in the CELL DCH or the CELL FACH RRC state. After receiving the PCRF with the existing failure cause ‘configuration unsupported’ or ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’, the UTRAN 104 returns to the previous RRC state, in step 614).
Ramasamy discloses transmitting a reconfiguration error message that indicates name of information that contains the configuration error, parameters that contain configuration and what information is incorrect but fails to disclose a reconfiguration error message that comprises a text string, wherein the text string indicates at least one of: a name of an information element, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; a name of a parameter, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; or a value, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that is incorrect.
However, Pulpatta more specifically teaches a reconfiguration error message that comprises a text string, wherein the text string indicates at least one of: a name of an information element, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; a name of a parameter, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; or a value, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that is incorrect (Paragraph [0050-0076] For example, error description information that resulted from the execution of a particular command, an error code that resulted from the execution of the particular command, or a column number in Configuration File 113 where a particular error occurred, may be stored in the Command Response Value Field 215. Command Response Value Field 215 also may store a string that is returned by Agent 141 or other elements of Router 150 when errors occur when executing the configuration commands; The Router 150 executes the one or more commands in the Configuration File 113. If an error occurs in executing a particular configuration command, as tested in step 308, then in step 310, information associated with the error is stored into the command response table, for example, using Command Response Entry 211A. The unique identifier of the then-current configuration operation is stored into Command Response Index Field 213. A value identifying a location in the Configuration File 113 of the error is stored into Command Line Index Field 214. According to one embodiment, the value of the location of the error may be a row number of the particular command. A string describing the error is stored into the Command Response Value Field 215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy with the teachings of Pulpatta. Pulpatta provides a solution which enables monitoring of the responses of configuration commands and determination of the nature of the failure and minimizes performance costs. The method enables the network element to store information describing errors that occur while executing the set of commands (Pulpatta Abstract; Paragraph [0002-0010 and 0094]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus and method of Claim 1. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta further discloses wherein the text string comprises a custom string set by the UE (Pulpatta Paragraph [0050-0076] The UE generates a custom string).
Regarding Claim 5, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta further discloses wherein the configuration error comprises at least one of: a violation of a communication standard, an incorrect band combination, a missing configuration parameter, an incorrect combination of settings, an incorrect value, a capability incompatibility, or an incorrect protocol layer parameter (Ramasamy Paragraph [0054-0070] The PCRF may be triggered by sending the failure uplink RRC message, in step 612. The failure uplink RRC message may be associated with one of the PCRF, Transport Channel Reconfiguration Failure, and Radio Bearer Reconfiguration Failure. In step 610, the UE 102 may trigger the PCRF by associating the PCRF with an existing failure cause. The existing failure cause may be one of a ‘configuration unsupported’ or an ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’; the UE 102 transmits the physical channel reconfiguration failure message to the RNC 402, in step 806. The controller module 406 may transmit the physical channel reconfiguration failure message. The physical channel reconfiguration failure message is associated with the failure cause to preserve the RRC state of the UE 102. The failure cause is one of ‘configuration unsupported’ and ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’).
Regarding Claim 9, Ramasamy discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Abstract; Figure 4-6 and 9), configured to cause the network node to:
transmit a reconfiguration message, wherein the reconfiguration message includes a configuration error in configuration information (508 and 608 of Figure 5 and 6; Paragraph [0054-0062] the UE 102 receives a downlink RRC message for transition of the RRC state, in step 508. The transition of the RRC state may be one of a Physical Channel Reconfiguration, Transport Channel Reconfiguration, or Radio Bearer Reconfiguration. In step 510, the UE 102 rejects the transition of the RRC state by triggering a Physical Channel Reconfiguration Failure (PCRF). The failure uplink RRC message may be associated with one of a PCRF, Transport Channel Reconfiguration Failure, and Radio Bearer Reconfiguration Failure. After receiving the PCRF with the existing failure cause ‘configuration unsupported’ or ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’, the UTRAN 104 returns to the previous RRC state, in step 614);
and receive a reconfiguration error message that indicates the configuration error (512 and 612 of Figure 5 and 6; Paragraph [0054-0064] The PCRF may be triggered by sending the failure uplink RRC message, in step 612. The failure uplink RRC message may be associated with one of the PCRF, Transport Channel Reconfiguration Failure, and Radio Bearer Reconfiguration Failure. In step 610, the UE 102 may trigger the PCRF by associating the PCRF with an existing failure cause. The existing failure cause may be one of a ‘configuration unsupported’ or an ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’. Since the PCRF is triggered by the UE 102, the UE 102 remains in the CELL DCH or the CELL FACH RRC state. After receiving the PCRF with the existing failure cause ‘configuration unsupported’ or ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’, the UTRAN 104 returns to the previous RRC state, in step 614).
Ramasamy discloses transmitting a reconfiguration error message that indicates name of information that contains the configuration error, parameters that contain configuration and what information is incorrect but fails to disclose a reconfiguration error message that comprises a text string, wherein the text string indicates at least one of: a name of an information element, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; a name of a parameter, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; or a value, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that is incorrect.
However, Pulpatta more specifically teaches a reconfiguration error message that comprises a text string, wherein the text string indicates at least one of: a name of an information element, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; a name of a parameter, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; or a value, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that is incorrect (Paragraph [0050-0076] For example, error description information that resulted from the execution of a particular command, an error code that resulted from the execution of the particular command, or a column number in Configuration File 113 where a particular error occurred, may be stored in the Command Response Value Field 215. Command Response Value Field 215 also may store a string that is returned by Agent 141 or other elements of Router 150 when errors occur when executing the configuration commands; The Router 150 executes the one or more commands in the Configuration File 113. If an error occurs in executing a particular configuration command, as tested in step 308, then in step 310, information associated with the error is stored into the command response table, for example, using Command Response Entry 211A. The unique identifier of the then-current configuration operation is stored into Command Response Index Field 213. A value identifying a location in the Configuration File 113 of the error is stored into Command Line Index Field 214. According to one embodiment, the value of the location of the error may be a row number of the particular command. A string describing the error is stored into the Command Response Value Field 215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy with the teachings of Pulpatta. Pulpatta provides a solution which enables monitoring of the responses of configuration commands and determination of the nature of the failure and minimizes performance costs. The method enables the network element to store information describing errors that occur while executing the set of commands (Pulpatta Abstract; Paragraph [0002-0010 and 0094]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus and method of Claim 9. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta further disclose wherein the text string comprises a custom string set by the UE (Pulpatta Paragraph [0050-0076] The UE generates a custom string).
Regarding Claim 13, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 9. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta further discloses wherein the configuration error comprises at least one of: a violation of a communication standard, an incorrect band combination, a missing configuration parameter, an incorrect combination of settings, an incorrect value, a capability incompatibility, or an incorrect protocol layer parameter (Ramasamy Paragraph [0054-0070] The PCRF may be triggered by sending the failure uplink RRC message, in step 612. The failure uplink RRC message may be associated with one of the PCRF, Transport Channel Reconfiguration Failure, and Radio Bearer Reconfiguration Failure. In step 610, the UE 102 may trigger the PCRF by associating the PCRF with an existing failure cause. The existing failure cause may be one of a ‘configuration unsupported’ or an ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’; the UE 102 transmits the physical channel reconfiguration failure message to the RNC 402, in step 806. The controller module 406 may transmit the physical channel reconfiguration failure message. The physical channel reconfiguration failure message is associated with the failure cause to preserve the RRC state of the UE 102. The failure cause is one of ‘configuration unsupported’ and ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’).
Regarding Claim 16, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 9. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: decode the configuration error using the reconfiguration error message (Ramasamy Figure 5 and 6; Paragraph [0054-0070] decoding, interpretation and handling of reconfiguration error message; After receiving the PCRF with the existing failure cause ‘configuration unsupported’ or ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’, the UTRAN 104 returns to the previous RRC state, in step 614. The previous RRC state may be one of the CELL DCH or the CELL FACH. Further, in step 616, the UTRAN 104 processes the initial UE message with the CN 202. The initial UE message is the stored IDT message received from the UE 102 for initiating the CS call. The IDT message may be processed with the CN 202 through the RANAP protocol. In step 618, CS signaling continues for establishment of the CS event or the CS call).
Regarding Claim 17, Ramasamy discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (Abstract; Figure 4-6 and 9), comprising:
receiving a reconfiguration message, wherein the reconfiguration message includes a configuration error in configuration information (508 and 608 of Figure 5 and 6; Paragraph [0054-0062] the UE 102 receives a downlink RRC message for transition of the RRC state, in step 508. The transition of the RRC state may be one of a Physical Channel Reconfiguration, Transport Channel Reconfiguration, or Radio Bearer Reconfiguration. In step 510, the UE 102 rejects the transition of the RRC state by triggering a Physical Channel Reconfiguration Failure (PCRF). The failure uplink RRC message may be associated with one of a PCRF, Transport Channel Reconfiguration Failure, and Radio Bearer Reconfiguration Failure. After receiving the PCRF with the existing failure cause ‘configuration unsupported’ or ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’, the UTRAN 104 returns to the previous RRC state, in step 614);
and transmitting a reconfiguration error message that indicates the configuration error (512 and 612 of Figure 5 and 6; Paragraph [0054-0064] The PCRF may be triggered by sending the failure uplink RRC message, in step 612. The failure uplink RRC message may be associated with one of the PCRF, Transport Channel Reconfiguration Failure, and Radio Bearer Reconfiguration Failure. In step 610, the UE 102 may trigger the PCRF by associating the PCRF with an existing failure cause. The existing failure cause may be one of a ‘configuration unsupported’ or an ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’. Since the PCRF is triggered by the UE 102, the UE 102 remains in the CELL DCH or the CELL FACH RRC state. After receiving the PCRF with the existing failure cause ‘configuration unsupported’ or ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’, the UTRAN 104 returns to the previous RRC state, in step 614).
Ramasamy discloses transmitting a reconfiguration error message that indicates name of information that contains the configuration error, parameters that contain configuration and what information is incorrect but fails to disclose a reconfiguration error message that comprises a text string, wherein the text string indicates at least one of: a name of an information element, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; a name of a parameter, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; or a value, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that is incorrect.
However, Pulpatta more specifically teaches a reconfiguration error message that comprises a text string, wherein the text string indicates at least one of: a name of an information element, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; a name of a parameter, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that contains the configuration error; or a value, of the configuration information of the reconfiguration message, that is incorrect (Paragraph [0050-0076] For example, error description information that resulted from the execution of a particular command, an error code that resulted from the execution of the particular command, or a column number in Configuration File 113 where a particular error occurred, may be stored in the Command Response Value Field 215. Command Response Value Field 215 also may store a string that is returned by Agent 141 or other elements of Router 150 when errors occur when executing the configuration commands; The Router 150 executes the one or more commands in the Configuration File 113. If an error occurs in executing a particular configuration command, as tested in step 308, then in step 310, information associated with the error is stored into the command response table, for example, using Command Response Entry 211A. The unique identifier of the then-current configuration operation is stored into Command Response Index Field 213. A value identifying a location in the Configuration File 113 of the error is stored into Command Line Index Field 214. According to one embodiment, the value of the location of the error may be a row number of the particular command. A string describing the error is stored into the Command Response Value Field 215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy with the teachings of Pulpatta. Pulpatta provides a solution which enables monitoring of the responses of configuration commands and determination of the nature of the failure and minimizes performance costs. The method enables the network element to store information describing errors that occur while executing the set of commands (Pulpatta Abstract; Paragraph [0002-0010 and 0094]).
Regarding Claim 18, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus and method of Claim 17. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta further disclose wherein the text string comprises a custom string set by the UE (Pulpatta Paragraph [0050-0076] The UE generates a custom string).
Regarding Claim 19, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the method of Claim 17. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta further discloses wherein the configuration error comprises at least one of: a violation of a communication standard, an incorrect band combination, a missing configuration parameter, an incorrect combination of settings, an incorrect value, a capability incompatibility, or an incorrect protocol layer parameter (Ramasamy Paragraph [0054-0070] The PCRF may be triggered by sending the failure uplink RRC message, in step 612. The failure uplink RRC message may be associated with one of the PCRF, Transport Channel Reconfiguration Failure, and Radio Bearer Reconfiguration Failure. In step 610, the UE 102 may trigger the PCRF by associating the PCRF with an existing failure cause. The existing failure cause may be one of a ‘configuration unsupported’ or an ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’; the UE 102 transmits the physical channel reconfiguration failure message to the RNC 402, in step 806. The controller module 406 may transmit the physical channel reconfiguration failure message. The physical channel reconfiguration failure message is associated with the failure cause to preserve the RRC state of the UE 102. The failure cause is one of ‘configuration unsupported’ and ‘incompatible simultaneous reconfiguration’).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Tiwari et al. U.S. Patent application Publication 2017/0180146, hereinafter Tiwari.
Regarding Claim 2, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta discloses reception of reconfiguration error messages but may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to receive the reconfiguration message, are configured to cause the UE to: receive a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message that indicates the configuration information.
However, Tiwari more specifically teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to receive the reconfiguration message, are configured to cause the UE to: receive a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message that indicates the configuration information (Paragraph [0060-0087] Reconfiguration message with Configuration parameters indicating configuration information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta with the teachings of Tiwari. The apparatus reduces call drops, improves user experience without affecting user equipment, provides backwards compatible solution/existing commands and information elements based solution, employs the solution individually per network element without synchronization with other network elements and eliminates a need to standardize the solution (Tiwari Abstract; Paragraph [0010-0022 and 0040-0048]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ramasamy disclose the apparatus of Claim 9. Ramasamy discloses reception of reconfiguration error messages but may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to transmit the reconfiguration message, are configured to cause the network node to: transmit a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message that indicates the configuration information.
However, Tiwari more specifically teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to transmit the reconfiguration message, are configured to cause the network node to: transmit a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message that indicates the configuration information (Paragraph [0060-0087] Reconfiguration message with Configuration parameters indicating configuration information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy with the teachings of Tiwari. The apparatus reduces call drops, improves user experience without affecting user equipment, provides backwards compatible solution/existing commands and information elements based solution, employs the solution individually per network element without synchronization with other network elements and eliminates a need to standardize the solution (Tiwari Abstract; Paragraph [0010-0022 and 0040-0048]).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Shih et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0037625, hereinafter Shih.
Regarding Claim 3, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta discloses reception of reconfiguration error messages but may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the reconfiguration error message, are configured to cause the UE to: transmit a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration error message that comprises the text string.
However, Tiwari more specifically teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the reconfiguration error message, are configured to cause the UE to: transmit a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration error message that comprises the text string (Paragraph [0140] If the UE 102 cannot build the RRC connection to and/or transmit data to any (to be added) secondary nodes, the UE 102 may declare a secondary node addition failure. For example, the UE 102 may declare the secondary node addition failure in the RRC message (e.g., RRC connection reconfiguration complete message, RRC connection reestablishment request message). For example, one bit or a string in the RRC connection reconfiguration complete message may be the indicator of the secondary node addition failure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta with the teachings of Shih. Shih provides a solution for an efficient RRC reconfiguration and improved secondary node addition mechanism for multi-connectivity. The frame structure for New Radio (NR) is to support flexible configurations for accommodating various next generation communication requirements such as enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), massive machine type communication (mMTC), ultra-reliable communication and low latency communication (URLLC) with fulfilling high reliability, high data rate and low latency requirements (Shih Abstract; Paragraph [0002-0005 and 0033-0035]).
Regarding Claim 11, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 9. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta discloses reception of reconfiguration error messages but may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to receive the reconfiguration error message, are configured to cause the network node to: receive a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration error message that comprises the text string.
However, Tiwari more specifically teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to receive the reconfiguration error message, are configured to cause the network node to: receive a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration error message that comprises the text string (Paragraph [0140] If the UE 102 cannot build the RRC connection to and/or transmit data to any (to be added) secondary nodes, the UE 102 may declare a secondary node addition failure. For example, the UE 102 may declare the secondary node addition failure in the RRC message (e.g., RRC connection reconfiguration complete message, RRC connection reestablishment request message). For example, one bit or a string in the RRC connection reconfiguration complete message may be the indicator of the secondary node addition failure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta with the teachings of Shih. Shih provides a solution for an efficient RRC reconfiguration and improved secondary node addition mechanism for multi-connectivity. The frame structure for New Radio (NR) is to support flexible configurations for accommodating various next generation communication requirements such as enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), massive machine type communication (mMTC), ultra-reliable communication and low latency communication (URLLC) with fulfilling high reliability, high data rate and low latency requirements (Shih Abstract; Paragraph [0002-0005 and 0033-0035]).
Claims 6, 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta as applied to claim 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Eklof et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0201582, hereinafter Eklof..
Regarding Claim 6, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta discloses reception of reconfiguration error messages but may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: transmit an indication of an action performed based at least in part on the configuration error.
However, Eklof more specifically teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: transmit an indication of an action performed based at least in part on the configuration error (Paragraph [0231-0266] Indication from the UE of a message indicating information about an error/failure to perform radio reconfiguration including indication the cause of the failure and actions performed based on the configuration error including a radio link failure (RLF) procedure and information of application of the configuration error to correct the issue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta with the teachings of Eklof. Eklof provides a solution which improves mobility robustness and success rates so as to improve latency, data rate and device power consumption, and thus provides benefits such as reduced user waiting time and extended battery lifetime (Eklof Abstract; Paragraph [0001-0020]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta and Eklof disclose the apparatus of Claim 6. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta and Eklof further disclose wherein the action comprises at least one of: a radio link failure (RLF) procedure, a cell barring procedure, or application of the configuration error (Eklof Paragraph [0231-0266] Indication from the UE of a message indicating information about an error/failure to perform radio reconfiguration including indication the cause of the failure and actions performed based on the configuration error including a radio link failure (RLF) procedure and information of application of the configuration error to correct the issue).
Regarding Claim 14, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 9. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta discloses reception of reconfiguration error messages but may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: receive an indication of an action performed based at least in part on the configuration error.
However, Eklof more specifically teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: receive an indication of an action performed based at least in part on the configuration error (Paragraph [0231-0266] Indication from the UE of a message indicating information about an error/failure to perform radio reconfiguration including indication the cause of the failure and actions performed based on the configuration error including a radio link failure (RLF) procedure and information of application of the configuration error to correct the issue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta with the teachings of Eklof. Eklof provides a solution which improves mobility robustness and success rates so as to improve latency, data rate and device power consumption, and thus provides benefits such as reduced user waiting time and extended battery lifetime (Eklof Abstract; Paragraph [0001-0020]).
Regarding Claim 20, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the method of Claim 17. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta discloses reception of reconfiguration error messages but may not explicitly disclose transmitting an indication of an action performed based at least in part on the configuration error.
However, Eklof more specifically teaches transmitting an indication of an action performed based at least in part on the configuration error (Paragraph [0231-0266] Indication from the UE of a message indicating information about an error/failure to perform radio reconfiguration including indication the cause of the failure and actions performed based on the configuration error including a radio link failure (RLF) procedure and information of application of the configuration error to correct the issue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta with the teachings of Eklof. Eklof provides a solution which improves mobility robustness and success rates so as to improve latency, data rate and device power consumption, and thus provides benefits such as reduced user waiting time and extended battery lifetime (Eklof Abstract; Paragraph [0001-0020]).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Jin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0081518, hereinafter Jin..
Regarding Claim 8, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 1. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose reception of reconfiguration error messages but may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the reconfiguration error message, are configured to cause the UE to: transmit the reconfiguration error message using extended signaling.
However, Jin more specifically teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the reconfiguration error message, are configured to cause the UE to: transmit the reconfiguration error message using extended signaling (Figure 5; Paragraph [0008-0013] a UE in a wireless communication system, the UE including a transceiver and a controller configured to perform control so as to generate master cell group (MCG) failure information, to transmit the MCG failure information to a base station of a secondary cell group (SCG), to receive a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message from the base station, and to transmit an RRC reconfiguration complete message based on the RRC reconfiguration message, wherein, in case that the RRC reconfiguration message is included in a downlink information transfer message and is received via a signaling radio bearer (SRB) 3 of an SCG, the RRC reconfiguration complete message is transmitted via an SRB1 configured based on the RRC reconfiguration message; Paragraph [0114-0117] Extended signaling following RRC reconfiguration procedure to indicate reconfiguration error).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta with the teachings of Jin. Jin provides a solution to a method of applying, even to the case in which a master cell group failure occurs, a secondary cell group recovery operation that is applied in case that a secondary cell group failure occurs, and is employed in a next generation mobile communication system, and particularly, embodies a UE operation in case that an RRC reconfiguration message is received in response to a master cell group failure (Jin Abstract; Paragraph [0005-0013]).
Regarding Claim 15, Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose the apparatus of Claim 9. Ramasamy in view of Pulpatta disclose reception of reconfiguration error messages but may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to receive the reconfiguration error message, are configured to cause the network node to: receive the reconfiguration error message using extended signaling.
However, Jin more specifically teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to receive the reconfiguration error message, are configured to cause the network node to: receive the reconfiguration error message using extended signaling (Figure 5; Paragraph [0008-0013] a UE in a wireless communication system, the UE including a transceiver and a controller configured to perform control so as to generate master cell group (MCG) failure information, to transmit the MCG failure information to a base station of a secondary cell group (SCG), to receive a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message from the base station, and to transmit an RRC reconfiguration complete message based on the RRC reconfiguration message, wherein, in case that the RRC reconfiguration message is included in a downlink information transfer message and is received via a signaling radio bearer (SRB) 3 of an SCG, the RRC reconfiguration complete message is transmitted via an SRB1 configured based on the RRC reconfiguration message; Paragraph [0114-0117] Extended signaling following RRC reconfiguration procedure to indicate reconfiguration error).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ramasamy with the teachings of Jin. Jin provides a solution to a method of applying, even to the case in which a master cell group failure occurs, a secondary cell group recovery operation that is applied in case that a secondary cell group failure occurs, and is employed in a next generation mobile communication system, and particularly, embodies a UE operation in case that an RRC reconfiguration message is received in response to a master cell group failure (Jin Abstract; Paragraph [0005-0013]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IVAN O LATORRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
IVAN O. LATORRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
/IVAN O LATORRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights