DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Cross Reference to Related Applications
2. This application claims the benefits of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 63/384,611, entitled "NETWORK-CONTROLLED APPROACH FOR DEVICE COLLABORATIVE RX/TX FOR DIVERSITY AGGREGATION" and filed on November 22, 2022, which is expressly incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claims status
4. Based on the Response to Restriction Requirement filed on May 26, 2026, applicant elects, to prosecute Group I, as claims 1-3 and 9-11 with traverse. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and 4-5, 6-8, 12-13 and 14-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, which corresponds to claims 1-3 and 9-11, in the reply filed on March 27, 2026 is acknowledged and is found persuasive (as noted by the Applicant, claim 11 was omitted inadvertently from Group I). Thus, all pending claims 1-3 and 9-11 are being considered for examination.
Drawings
6. The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on February 22, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on August 28, 2024.
Claim Objection (minor informalities)
8. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites:
“…..transmitting, to the base station, a UE information response message including at least one of the successful handover report or the radio link failure information in response to receiving the UE information request message.”.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and the claim recites:
“……wherein the successful handover report further includes ….”.
A clear interpretation of independent claim (according to claim limitation i.e. claim language including “at least one of “and “or”) is that which states the following alternatives:
UE information response message including at least one of-
feature (a): successful handover report or
feature (b): radio link failure information.
According to the structure of the claims, independent claims require only one alternative and in a case that any cited prior art has been disclosed the teaching of only one from the alternatives, the claim limitation(s) is/are still met. As such, questions are raised about the inconsistencies noted herein and that its respectfully observed applicant’s objective for the claim limitation i.e. further clarification is requested whether the dependent claim 2 is optional in case the cited prior art only discloses (a) or (b).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 10, the claims are objected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
For the purpose of examinations, Examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
11. There are two separate requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). MPEP § 2171. The first is subjective and requires that the claims must set forth the subject matter that the Applicants regard as their invention. Id. The second is objective and requires that the claims must particularly point out and distinctively define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant (i.e., whether the scope of the claim is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art). Id.
12. Claims 2 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites:
“…storing a successful handover report…
…by a target cell for a handover…” in line 4.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites:
“…wherein the hangover is preformed…
…to a target cell associated with…” in line 2.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and it is unclear whether “a target cell” from claim 2 is referring back to “a target cell for a handover” from claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Appropriate corrections are requested. For the purpose of examinations, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al. (US 2022/0124519 A1), hereinafter “Xu” in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #119 (R2-230363; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated August 28, 2024), hereinafter “3GPP’363”.
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 6, method of supporting self-configuration and self-optimization), the method comprising:
identifying that a radio link failure (RLF) is detected (Fig. 6, paragraph [0137], radio link failure occurs at the UE and The UE saves RLF report information);
storing radio link failure information based on the RLF (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0067], [0137], UE saves RLF report information), the radio link failure information including the C-RNTI assigned by the target cell (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0067], [0137], C-RNTI used in a cell where a RLF failure occurs);
receiving, from a base station, a user equipment (UE) information request message (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0138], [0139], UE information request message to the UE, requesting RLF report); and
transmitting, to the base station (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0063], [0067], [0074], [0140], UE information response message including RLF report), a UE information response message including at least one of the successful handover report or the radio link failure information in response to receiving the UE information request message (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0063], [0067], [0074], [0140], radio link failure report at least includes one or more of the followings: A cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI), a C-RNTI used in a cell where a RLF failure occurs or a C-RNTI of a source cell when a handover fails; A time from a failure to a successful access to a network).
While Xu implicitly refers to “storing a successful handover report including information on a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) assigned by a target cell for a handover in case that the handover is completed” (Fig. 6, paragraph [0132], UE applies the corresponding configuration of the selected candidate cell, synchronizes to the selected candidate cell, transmits the RRC reconfiguration complete message to the target base station, and completes the RRC handover process or the conditional handover (CHO) execution process), 3GPP’363 from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses storing a successful handover report including information on a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) assigned by a target cell for a handover in case that the handover is completed (Figs. 1, 2, page 3, line 10-14, page 4, line 3-11, store successful handover information in VarSuccessHO-Report; inter-rat HO from NR to LTE and T310/T312 trigger for successful handover report (SHR) is met; UE then collects the SHR in NR format and also includes the target C-RNTI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “storing a successful handover report including information on a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) assigned by a target cell for a handover in case that the handover is completed” as taught by 3GPP’363, in the system of Xu, so that it would provide successful PSCell Change Report and enhancements to successful handover report during intra-NR handover (3GPP’363, page 2, line 4-20).
Regarding claim 2, Xu in view of 3GPP’363 disclose the method according to claim 1. (Claim 1 recites multiple functionalities by using “at least one of” and “or” in a selective way. Since Examiner has shown the teaching of at least one functionality i.e. radio link failure information, the claim limitation(s) is/are still met which dependent upon the claim).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses the radio link failure information further includes fourth information indicating a time elapsed since the RLF is detected (paragraphs [0063], [0064], [0074], [0140], a time from an occurrence of a failure to a sending of a UE RLF report).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SITHU KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights