DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The “Summary” section of the specification (from [0008]-[0035]) is directed towards the claims from the parent application (focusing on the exchange of messages between a target base station and a source base station and/or a third base station). However, the claims in the current application are directed towards the exchange of messages between a UE and a base station. The “Summary” section should be updated to match the claims in the current application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
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.
Claim 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13: the steps “detecting an RLF” and “storing information on the RLF” appear to be steps performed by the UE. However, in claim 13, they are claimed as steps performed by a base station. It is unclear if the base station also performs these steps. (If so, the Applicant should provide the corresponding support in the specification.) Otherwise, the claims should be amended to reflect steps performed by a base station.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5- 9, 12- 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (US 2023/0239760) in view of Liu’735 et al (US 2022/0141735).
Regarding claim 1: Dai discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
[transmitting an RLF report after RRC reestablishment] (see the RLF report in Figure 4 after the RRC reestablishment as described in [0070], for example)
wherein the RLF report includes information on a time between initiation of a conditional handover (CHO) execution and reception of a reconfiguration message associated with the CHO execution (see time “T3” in Figure 4 that is included in the RLF report as described in [0071] and [0074]; in particular, “UE Reported Time 3 (also called third time information, “T3” in FIG. 4): indicating time elapsed for the first conditional configuration evaluation. The first conditional configuration evaluation is performed from receiving the CHO configuration to a cell being selected for CHO configuration execution or all trigger conditions of the cell being fulfilled or the first T304 starts”; as indicated in Figure 4, the end of T3 is at the initiation of the CHO execution; further, as indicated in [0067], the CHO configuration is transmitted in a reconfiguration message (that includes the ConditionalReconfiguration IE) related to the CHO).
Dai does not explicitly disclose that the RLF report is transmitted in response to a UE information request and within a UE information response message. That is, Dai does not explicitly disclose the limitations: receiving, from a base station, a UE information request message; and transmitting, to the base station, a UE information response message including a radio link failure (RLF) report as a response to the UE information request message. However, Liu ’735 discloses in Figure 6 that after an RRC connection reestablishment, an RLF report is transmitted to the network via a UE information request (630) and a UE information response (635). See the description of these messages in [0300]-[0301], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dai to utilize the UE information request and UE information response messages as disclosed in Liu ’735. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to control the timing of the RLF report transmission and to allow multiple RLF reports to be bundled in one UE information response message.
Regarding claim 8: Dai discloses a method performed by a base station in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
[receiving an RLF report after RRC reestablishment] (see the RLF report in Figure 4 after the RRC reestablishment as described in [0070], for example)
wherein the RLF report includes information on a time between initiation of a conditional handover (CHO) execution and reception of a reconfiguration message associated with the CHO execution (see time “T3” in Figure 4 that is included in the RLF report as described in [0071] and [0074]; in particular, “UE Reported Time 3 (also called third time information, “T3” in FIG. 4): indicating time elapsed for the first conditional configuration evaluation. The first conditional configuration evaluation is performed from receiving the CHO configuration to a cell being selected for CHO configuration execution or all trigger conditions of the cell being fulfilled or the first T304 starts”; as indicated in Figure 4, the end of T3 is at the initiation of the CHO execution; further, as indicated in [0067], the CHO configuration is transmitted in a reconfiguration message (that includes the ConditionalReconfiguration IE) related to the CHO).
Dai does not explicitly disclose that the RLF report is transmitted in response to a UE information request and within a UE information response message. That is, Dai does not explicitly disclose the limitations: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a UE information request message; and receiving, from the UE, a UE information response message including a radio link failure (RLF) report as a response to the UE information request message. However, Liu ’735 discloses in Figure 6 that after an RRC connection reestablishment, an RLF report is transmitted to the network via a UE information request (630) and a UE information response (635). See the description of these messages in [0300]-[0301], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dai to utilize the UE information request and UE information response messages as disclosed in Liu ’735. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to control the timing of the RLF report transmission and to allow multiple RLF reports to be bundled in one UE information response message.
Regarding claim 14: Dai discloses a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising:
a transceiver (see receiver 1301 and transmitter 1303 of Figure 13, for example); and
a controller configured to (see processor 1305 of Figure 13, for example):
[transmitting an RLF report after RRC reestablishment] (see the RLF report in Figure 4 after the RRC reestablishment as described in [0070], for example)
wherein the RLF report includes information on a time between initiation of a conditional handover (CHO) execution and reception of a reconfiguration message associated with the CHO execution (see time “T3” in Figure 4 that is included in the RLF report as described in [0071] and [0074]; in particular, “UE Reported Time 3 (also called third time information, “T3” in FIG. 4): indicating time elapsed for the first conditional configuration evaluation. The first conditional configuration evaluation is performed from receiving the CHO configuration to a cell being selected for CHO configuration execution or all trigger conditions of the cell being fulfilled or the first T304 starts”; as indicated in Figure 4, the end of T3 is at the initiation of the CHO execution; further, as indicated in [0067], the CHO configuration is transmitted in a reconfiguration message (that includes the ConditionalReconfiguration IE) related to the CHO).
Dai does not explicitly disclose that the RLF report is transmitted in response to a UE information request and within a UE information response message. That is, Dai does not explicitly disclose the limitations: receive, from a base station, a UE information request message, and transmit, to the base station, a UE information response message including a radio link failure (RLF) report as a response to the UE information request message. However, Liu ’735 discloses in Figure 6 that after an RRC connection reestablishment, an RLF report is transmitted to the network via a UE information request (630) and a UE information response (635). See the description of these messages in [0300]-[0301], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dai to utilize the UE information request and UE information response messages as disclosed in Liu ’735. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to control the timing of the RLF report transmission and to allow multiple RLF reports to be bundled in one UE information response message.
Regarding claim 18: Dai discloses a base station in a wireless communication system, the base station comprising:
a transceiver (see receiver 1401 and transmitter 1403 of Figure 14, for example); and
a controller configured to (see processor 1405 of Figure 14, for example):
[receiving an RLF report after RRC reestablishment] (see the RLF report in Figure 4 after the RRC reestablishment as described in [0070], for example)
wherein the RLF report includes information on a time between initiation of a conditional handover (CHO) execution and reception of a reconfiguration message associated with the CHO execution (see time “T3” in Figure 4 that is included in the RLF report as described in [0071] and [0074]; in particular, “UE Reported Time 3 (also called third time information, “T3” in FIG. 4): indicating time elapsed for the first conditional configuration evaluation. The first conditional configuration evaluation is performed from receiving the CHO configuration to a cell being selected for CHO configuration execution or all trigger conditions of the cell being fulfilled or the first T304 starts”; as indicated in Figure 4, the end of T3 is at the initiation of the CHO execution; further, as indicated in [0067], the CHO configuration is transmitted in a reconfiguration message (that includes the ConditionalReconfiguration IE) related to the CHO).
Dai does not explicitly disclose that the RLF report is transmitted in response to a UE information request and within a UE information response message. That is, Dai does not explicitly disclose the limitations: transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a UE information request message, and receive, from the UE, a UE information response message including a radio link failure (RLF) report as a response to the UE information request message. However, Liu ’735 discloses in Figure 6 that after an RRC connection reestablishment, an RLF report is transmitted to the network via a UE information request (630) and a UE information response (635). See the description of these messages in [0300]-[0301], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dai to utilize the UE information request and UE information response messages as disclosed in Liu ’735. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to control the timing of the RLF report transmission and to allow multiple RLF reports to be bundled in one UE information response message.
Regarding claim 2, 9, 15, and 19: Dai further discloses the limitation wherein the RLF report further includes an identifier of a cell associated with a CHO based recovery (see [0106]-[0108] and [0113], for example; the second failed cell is associated with CHO recovery as it is the cell to which the second CHO success (and subsequent RLF) pertains; as indicated in [0108], this is included in the RLF-Report 2, which as indicated in [0113], can be included with RLF-Report 1 in a single report (“the UE may transmit one RLF report including all time information in RLF-Report 1 and RLF-Report 2”)).
Regarding claim 5 and 12: Dai further discloses the limitations wherein the RLF report further includes information on a measurement for a neighbor cell (disclosed throughout; see [0152], for example, which indicates that the RLF report includes a list of cells that fulfilled or partially fulfilled the conditions as well as measurements for these cells; these cells are clearly neighbor cells as they at least partially fulfill the conditions) and information on a time from the CHO execution to a connection failure (disclosed throughout; see time “T1” in Figure 4 that is included in the RLF report as described in [0071] and [0072]; as indicated in [0072], for example, this time indicates “time elapsed since a first CHO configuration execution initialization until a CHO failure”; see also “T7” of Figure 7 and [0099]-[0100], which discloses “time elapsed since the first CHO configuration execution initialization until radio link failure”).
Regarding claim 6: Dai further discloses the limitations of detecting an RLF (disclosed throughout; see [0098] – “After the RLF is detected…”). Further, the combination of Dai and Liu ’735discloses the limitation of storing information on the RLF (in both Dai (see Figures 4 and 7, for example) and Liu ’735 (see Figure 6, for example), a significant delay exists between the detection of an RLF and the transmission of the RLF report; further, as indicated in [0300] of Liu ’735, the UE first indicates to the network that “one or more RLF reports are available at the UE” before the UE information request is transmitted by the network; clearly, the UE stores information on the RLF to enable the RLF report to be transmitted after this delay).
Regarding claim 7: Dai, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Dai does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 7 of transmitting, to the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment complete message including information indicating that the UE has the RLF report. However, Liu ’735 discloses in [0300] that “the RRC connection reestablishment complete message may include an indication that one or more RLF reports are available at the UE”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dai to utilize the UE information request and UE information response messages as well as the indication of RLF report availability in the RRC Connection Reestablishment complete message as disclosed in Liu ’735. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to control the timing of the RLF report transmission and to allow multiple RLF reports to be bundled in one UE information response message.
Regarding claim 13: Dai further discloses the limitations of detecting an RLF (disclosed throughout; see [0098] – “After the RLF is detected…”; further, the base station effectively detects the RLF when the RLF report is received). Further, the combination of Dai and Liu ’735discloses the limitation of storing information on the RLF (in both Dai (see Figures 4 and 7, for example) and Liu ’735 (see Figure 6, for example), a significant delay exists between the detection of an RLF and the transmission of the RLF report; further, as indicated in [0300] of Liu ’735, the UE first indicates to the network that “one or more RLF reports are available at the UE” before the UE information request is transmitted by the network; clearly, the UE stores information on the RLF to enable the RLF report to be transmitted after this delay; further, the base station further stores information on the RLF when receiving the RLF report in order to later analyze the report).
Dai does not explicitly disclose the limitations of receiving, from the UE, a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment complete message including information indicating that the UE has the RLF report. However, Liu ’735 discloses in [0300] that “the RRC connection reestablishment complete message may include an indication that one or more RLF reports are available at the UE”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dai to utilize the UE information request and UE information response messages as well as the indication of RLF report availability in the RRC Connection Reestablishment complete message as disclosed in Liu ’735. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to control the timing of the RLF report transmission and to allow multiple RLF reports to be bundled in one UE information response message.
Claims 3, 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (US 2023/0239760) in view of Liu’735 et al (US 2022/0141735) in view of Liu ’571 et al (US 2023/0262571).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 16, and 20: Dai, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 as indicated above. Dai does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 3, 10, 16, and 20 that the RLF report further includes information on a condition for the CHO execution and information on which of conditions for the CHO execution is met. However, Liu ’571 discloses an RLF report that includes information on a condition for the CHO execution (see [0089], which indicates that the RLF report includes “a parameter corresponding to a configured handover execution condition”) and information on which of conditions for the CHO execution is met (see [0085], for example, which indicates that the RLF report includes a list of candidate cells meeting the handover execution condition, which is information on the CHO execution condition that is met (the cell(s) corresponding to the condition that are met)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include information on a condition for CHO execution and information on which conditions for CHO execution is met as suggested by Liu ’571. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the network with additional information to enable the reason for radio link failure to be more accurately diagnosed and corrected.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (US 2023/0239760) in view of Liu’735 et al (US 2022/0141735) in view of Li et al (US 2022/0369175).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17: Dai, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 8, and 14 as indicated above. Dai does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4 that the RLF report further includes information on a handover type associated with a connection failure. However, Li discloses an RLF report that includes a handover type associated with a connection failure (see [0176], for example, which indicates that the RLF report includes “a type indication used to indicate whether the terminal executes a conditional handover or a traditional handover”; the handover type is associated with a connection/radio link failure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a handover type associated with a connection failure in the RLF report as disclosed by Li. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the network to optimize the handover process as suggested by Li in [0084], for example.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xie et al (US 2022/0400415) discloses a method for transmitting an RLF report for conditional handover.
Fang et al (US 2022/0022058) discloses a method for performance information reporting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 March 20, 2026