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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed on 12/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “waiting to reach a maximum number of radio link control (RLC) retransmissions or random access (RA) attempts in an event that the RL early recovery is performed”. There is a general linking of RLC retransmissions to radio link problems in the Applicant’s Specification in pars. [0033], [0036], and [0093]. However, there is no indication of the apparatus waiting to reach a maximum number of RLC retransmissions in an event that the RL early recovery is performed, as claimed in amended claim 1. There is a general linking of RA attempts and RL early recovery in Figs. 11 and 13 and pars. [0072] and [0074]. However, the Applicant’s Specification recites “the UE does not need to suffer UL radio link interruption and wait for RA attempt number reach to the maximum value configured by network” in par. [0072] and “UE will not wait to reach the maximum number of RA attempt” in par. [0074]. This appears to contradict the claim language in amended claim 1 of waiting to reach a maximum number of RA attempts in an event that the RL early recovery is performed. In this case, the disclosure does not support this claimed element.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-14 are rejected based on their dependency on independent claim 1.
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.
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, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino et al. (US 2024/0267972), hereinafter “Orsino” in view of Virtej et al. (EP 3681243), hereinafter “Virtej”.
Regarding claim 1, Orsino teaches:
A method, comprising:
performing, by a processor of an apparatus, a radio link (RL) problem prediction according to an apparatus context to generate a prediction result before a radio link failure (RLF) occurs (see Orsino, Fig. 9, items 950 and 951, par. [0182], lines 4-6: the exemplary method can also include the operations of block 950, where the UE can detect or predict occurrence of the failure event, and see Orsino, par. [0183], lines 1-7: detecting or predicting occurrence of the failure event in block 950 can include the operations of sub-block 951, where the UE can predict RLF in the first cell based on an ML model and on one or more of the following: in-sync and out-of-sync indications from the UE's physical layer; and measurements made by the UE in the first cell, and see Orsino, par. [0248], line 1: The UE 1200 includes processing circuitry 1202, and see Orsino, par. [0249], lines 1-5: The processing circuitry 1202 is configured to process instructions and data and may be configured to implement any sequential state machine operative to execute instructions stored as machine-readable computer programs in the memory 1210; in this case, the UE may predict occurrence of the failure event (corresponding to generating a prediction result) based on an ML model (corresponding to according to an apparatus context)); and
determining, by the processor, whether to perform RL early recovery based on the prediction result (see Orsino, Fig. 9, items 970 and 990, par. [0171], lines 5-12: The exemplary method can also include the operations of block 970, in which the UE can select one of the configurations upon occurrence of a failure event in a first cell configured as the PCell. The exemplary method can also include the operations of block 990, in which the UE can switch the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration, and see Orsino, par. [0181], lines 1-5: the failure event can be one of the following: detected RLF in the first cell; detected radio problems indicating early RLF in the first cell; expiration of a timer indicating early RLF in the first cell; or predicted RLF in the first cell; in this case, a configuration is selected based on a failure event, including predicted RLF. The configuration is used for switching cells (i.e. performing RL early recovery)); and
triggering, by the processor, an early measurement report (see Orsino, par. [0128]: When RLF is detected, the UE prepares a RLF report that includes, among other information, the measurement status of the serving and neighbor cells when RLF was detected, and see par. [0153]: upon detecting an early radio link problem on the PCell and having selected a stored configuration to be used, but before applying the selected configuration, the UE starts to perform measurements on the cell indicated by the selected configuration), or an early reestablishment procedure (see Orsino, par. [0171]: The exemplary method can also include the operations of block 970, in which the UE can select one of the configurations upon occurrence of a failure event in a first cell configured as the PCell. The exemplary method can also include the operations of block 990, in which the UE can switch the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration; in this case, reconfiguration based on a failure event corresponds to an early reestablishment procedure), or waiting to reach a maximum number of radio link control (RLC) retransmissions or random access (RA) attempts in an event that the RL early recovery is performed (see Orsino, par. [0123]: According to 3GPP TS 36.331 (v15.7.0), possible causes for RLF include:, and see par. [0127]: 4) Reaching a maximum number of RLC retransmissions for a signaling radio bearer (SRB) or for a data radio bearer (DRB), and see par. [0128]: When RLF is detected, the UE prepares a RLF report that includes, among other information, the measurement status of the serving and neighbor cells when RLF was detected. The UE then goes to RRC_IDLE mode and selects a serving cell based on idle-mode cell selection procedures. The selected cell could be the cell in which the RLF occurred, a different cell served by the same network node, or a cell served by a different network node. The UE starts an RRC reestablishment procedure towards the selected cell, including sending a reestablishment message with a cause value set to rlf-cause; in this case, cell reconfiguration is performed (corresponding to RL early recovery) based on reaching a maximum number of RLC retransmissions).
However, Orsino does not teach:
wherein triggering an early measurement report without waiting for an expiration of a timer, or an early reestablishment procedure without waiting for an expiration of a timer
Virtej, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein triggering an early measurement report without waiting for an expiration of a timer, or an early reestablishment procedure without waiting for an expiration of a timer (see Virtej, Fig. 2, par. [0029]: Referring to Figure 2, a method in a user equipment of a wireless communication network is shown, the method comprising: detecting (block 202) a triggering condition for a second timer for initiating a re-establishment procedure before expiry of a first timer that is a radio link failure related timer; detecting (block 204) a triggering condition for the first timer and starting the first timer, wherein the detecting the triggering condition for the second timer is performed prior to detecting the triggering condition for the first timer; based on detecting the triggering condition for the first timer, determining (block 206) whether a predetermined condition regarding the triggering condition for the second timer is true; upon determining that the predetermined condition is true, determining (block 208) whether there is at least one prepared cell; and in case there is at least one prepared cell, starting (block 210) the second timer with a value (i.e. value V1) that is lower than or equal to a predetermined value (i.e. value Y), or otherwise, starting (block 212) the second timer with a value (i.e. value V2) greater than the predetermined value (i.e. value Y); in this case, the reestablishment procedure is started while a radio link failure timer is still running (i.e. without waiting for an expiration of a timer))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the triggering early reestablishment of Orsino with the triggering without waiting for expiry of a timer of Virtej with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of faster recovery from RLF (see Virtej, par. [0036]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method. Orsino further teaches:
wherein RL early recovery comprises:
transmitting, by the processor, a measurement report to a network node of a wireless network in an event that the prediction result indicates that the RL problem will occur (see Orsino, Fig. 9, item 952, par. [0183], lines 8-11: detecting or predicting occurrence of the failure event in block 950 can also include the operations of sub-block 952, where the UE can send an indication of the predicted RLF to the wireless network; in this case, an indication of the predicted RLF corresponds to a measurement report), and a handover has possibility to be performed (see Orsino, Fig. 9, items 970 and 990, par. [0171], lines 5-12: The exemplary method can also include the operations of block 970, in which the UE can select one of the configurations upon occurrence of a failure event in a first cell configured as the PCell. The exemplary method can also include the operations of block 990, in which the UE can switch the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration, and see Orsino, par. [0181], lines 1-5: the failure event can be one of the following: detected RLF in the first cell; detected radio problems indicating early RLF in the first cell; expiration of a timer indicating early RLF in the first cell; or predicted RLF in the first cell; in this case, when a failure event occurs (i.e. RLF is predicted), a configuration may be selected and used for switching (corresponding to handover being possible)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method. Orsino further teaches:
wherein the RL problem prediction is performed based on at least one of a rule-based algorithm, a machine learning (ML) algorithm, a deep learning (DL) algorithm and an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm (see Orsino, Fig. 9, par. [0186], lines 1-4: In some of these embodiments (i.e., that include sub-block 951), the exemplary method can include the operations of block 920, where the UE can receive the ML model from the wireless network, and see Orsino, par. [0192], lines 1-6: the UE includes a first ML model and the ML model received from the network is a second ML model. In such variants, the exemplary method can also include the operations of block 940, where the UE can select the second ML model as the ML model to use for predicting RLF in the first cell).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method. Orsino further teaches:
wherein the apparatus context is a context information of the apparatus within a latest time length which comprises at least one of a cell measurement result, channel state information, power information, a control command, configured parameter information, historical camping cell information, state information of the apparatus, and a service type (see Orsino, Fig. 9, items 950 and 951, par. [0182], lines 4-6: the exemplary method can also include the operations of block 950, where the UE can detect or predict occurrence of the failure event, and see Orsino, par. [0183], lines 1-7: detecting or predicting occurrence of the failure event in block 950 can include the operations of sub-block 951, where the UE can predict RLF in the first cell based on an ML model and on one or more of the following: in-sync and out-of-sync indications from the UE's physical layer; and measurements made by the UE in the first cell, and see Orsino, pars. [0183-0185]: detecting or predicting occurrence of the failure event in block 950 can also include the operations of sub-block 952, where the UE can send an indication of the predicted RLF to the wireless network. In some variants, one or more of the following applies:
the indication of the predicted RLF is sent at least a preconfigured duration before a predicted time of the RLF; and
the indication of the predicted RLF includes a predicted time of the RLF;in this case, RL failure prediction using cell measurements is sent at least a preconfigured duration before a predicted time of the RLF (i.e. within a latest time length)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method. Orsino further teaches:
wherein an RL problem comprises at least one of a downlink (DL) out of synchronization, a radio link control (RLC) retransmission fails, or an uplink (UL) random access procedure fail (see Orsino, par. [0026], lines 1-5: the failure event can be one of the following: detected RLF in the first cell; detected radio problems indicating early RLF in the first cell; expiration of a timer indicating early RLF in the first cell; or predicted RLF in the first cell, and see Orsino, par. [0028], lines 1-5: detecting or predicting occurrence of the failure event can include predicting RLF in the first cell based on a machine learning (ML) model and on one or more of the following: in-sync and out-of-sync indications from the UE's physical layer, and see Orsino, pars. [0123-0127]: possible causes for RLF include:
1) Radio link problem indicated by PHY (e.g., expiry of RLM-related timer T310);
2) Random access problem indicated by MAC entity;
3) Expiry of a measurement reporting timer (e.g., T312), due to not receiving a HO command from the network while the timer is running despite sending a measurement report; and
4) Reaching a maximum number of RLC retransmissions for a signaling radio bearer (SRB) or for a data radio bearer (DRB)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino in view of Virtej, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Johansson et al. (US 9,854,496), hereinafter "Johansson".
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method.
However, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej does not teach:
wherein the handover has possibility to be performed means all of these factors should be fulfilled:
the apparatus has received measurement configuration for handover,
the apparatus is not performing handover currently,
the apparatus has measured at least one neighboring cell that meets a predefined signal quality.
Johansson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the handover has possibility to be performed means all of these factors should be fulfilled (see Johansson, Fig. 6, col. 9, line 26: FIG. 6 illustrates steps for efficient UE cell reselection, and see Johansson, col. 9, lines 59-61: In step 631, the UE performs cell reselection evaluation, and when a neighbor cell meets a cell reselection criterion, the UE camps on that cell):
the apparatus has received measurement configuration for handover (see Johansson, Fig. 6, items 611 and 612, col. 9, lines 27-34: In step 611, a UE receives a configuration for cell reselection. For connected mode cell reselection, the UE receives a specific configuration, that may need to be combined with selected parts of other configurations or of common configurations to be complete, either the Idle mode cell reselection configuration, or the connected mode measurement configuration, as depicted in step 612),
the apparatus is not performing handover currently (see Johansson, col. 9, lines 59-64: In step 631, the UE performs cell reselection evaluation, and when a neighbor cell meets a cell reselection criterion, the UE camps on that cell. The steps of cell reselection could work as Idle mode cell reselection, or performed in a way that is similar to RRC connected measurement evaluation; in this case, the UE camping on a cell corresponds to not actively performing handover),
the apparatus has measured at least one neighboring cell that meets a predefined signal quality (see Johansson, col. 9, lines 59-61: In step 631, the UE performs cell reselection evaluation, and when a neighbor cell meets a cell reselection criterion, the UE camps on that cell, and see Johansson, col. 7, lines 12-15: For cell reselection concerning cells with different priorities, a higher-priority neighbor cell can be reselected when its RX or quality level is above a threshold ThreshHigh; in this case, evaluating neighbor cells for quality level above a threshold corresponds to meeting a predefined signal quality).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the handover has a possibility to be performed of the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej with the possibility being determined based on the specific conditions of Johansson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving mobility performance by avoiding handover failures (see Johansson, col. 2, lines 23-37).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino in view of Virtej, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Da Silva et al. (US 2023/0300654), hereinafter "Da Silva '654".
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method.
However, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej does not teach:
wherein the measurement report includes the prediction result or not depends on if the network node supports an RL problem prediction result report or not.
Da Silva ‘654, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the measurement report includes the prediction result or not depends on if the network node supports an RL problem prediction result report or not (see Da Silva ‘654, par. [0119], lines 1-9: Predictions of information related to failure, or simply failure predictions, may be performed by the UE 103 according to configurations, i.e. fields and associated IEs comprising further fields/parameters, included in a measConfig of IE MeasConfig, especially in the alternative where predictions of information related to failures are to be comprised in a message, e.g. a measurement reports, whose criteria are also configured in measConfig of IE MeasConfig, and see Da Silva ‘654, par. [0308], lines 1-8: The reception of the UE message comprising predictions of information related to failure may be configured by the network node 101 as described earlier. For example, reporting configuration may be comprised in an RRCReconfiguration message transmitted to the UE 103, comprising a measConfig field of IE MeasConfig, which may be extended to enable the configuration of reporting of predictions related to failure; in this case, the network node may configure the reception of predictions in a measurement report (i.e. the inclusion of predictions depends on the network node)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the measurement report of the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej with the conditional inclusion of the prediction result based on network node support of Da Silva ‘654 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enabling an efficient network controlled mobility mechanism even for higher frequencies (see Da Silva ‘654, par. [0032], lines 1-11).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino in view Virtej, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Da Silva et al. (US 2022/0361275), hereinafter "Da Silva '275".
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method. Orsino further teaches:
wherein RL early recovery further comprising:
transmitting, by the processor, a reestablishment request or a connection setup request to the network node (see Orsino, par. [0120], lines 13-15: the UE obtains access to the target cell and sends an RRC Reestablishment Request message to the target cell)
However, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej does not teach:
in an event that the apparatus fails to receive a response for the measurement report from the network node.
Da Silva ‘275, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
in an event that the apparatus fails to receive a response for the measurement report from the network node (see Da Silva ‘275, par. [0470], lines 1-16: the UE reports logged information about the NAS recovery event or in general it reports information such as measurements and occurred events that precede and/or follow the NAS recovery. The NAS Recovery is one possible trigger for the availability of logged information reports from the UE. Namely, one event the embodiments allow to detect is one where the RRC Reconfiguration like message was not received by the UE. Such message contains information that allows the UE to move to a different RRC state and if such message is not received the state mismatch between network and UE will lead to a number of failure events, which can result in also NAS recovery, but that could for example result in RRC re-establishment if, for example, the UE detected an RLF due to lack of detection of some essential signals from the network (such as CSI-RS); in this case, failure to receive a message (i.e. response) after reporting measurements may result in RRC re-establishment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the transmission of a re-establishment request of the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej with the transmission occurring when a response to measurements is not received of Da Silva ‘275 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of managing a mismatch in RRC state due to a missed reception (see Da Silva ‘275, par. [0420], lines 1-11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino in view of Virtej, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Uemura (US 12,120,503), hereinafter "Uemura".
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method.
However, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej does not teach:
further comprising:
selecting, by the processor, a candidate cell group; and
selecting, by the processor, at least one target cell from the candidate cell group, wherein the measurement report comprises information of the at least one target cell.
Uemura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further comprising:
selecting, by the processor, a candidate cell group (see Uemura, Fig. 7, col. 11, lines 52-55: The given processing includes at least any one of initiating the conditional handover procedure, initiating the secondary cell group addition procedure, and initiating the measurement report procedure, and see Uemura, col. 10, lines 42-44: it becomes possible for the terminal 10 itself to initiate the procedure to add the candidate cell as the secondary cell group; in this case, the terminal may add a candidate cell as a secondary cell group (corresponding to selecting a candidate cell group)); and
selecting, by the processor, at least one target cell from the candidate cell group, wherein the measurement report comprises information of the at least one target cell (see Uemura, Fig. 4, item S23, col. 9, lines 25-30: The terminal 10 measures a handover candidate cell(s) on the basis of the measurement configuration included in the received RRC message. Specifically, the terminal 10 considers the indicated handover candidate cell(s) as a measurement object cell(s) (applicable cell(s)) and evaluates the measurement event (S23), and see Uemura, Fig. 7, col. 11, lines 52-55: The given processing includes at least any one of initiating the conditional handover procedure, initiating the secondary cell group addition procedure, and initiating the measurement report procedure; in this case, handover candidate cells may be measured based on a measurement configuration (corresponding to selecting target cells for measurement)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej with the selection of a candidate cell group and target cell for measurement of Uemura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of flexible mobility control and enhanced communication speed (see Uemura, col. 20, lines 26-33).
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino in view of Virtej, as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Paladugu et al. (US 11,510,112), hereinafter "Paladugu".
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method. Orsino further teaches:
wherein RL early recovery further comprising:
enabling, by the processor, a timer (see Orsino, Fig. 5, par. [0120], lines 3-5: the UE detects N310 consecutive OOS conditions during L1 RLM procedures on the PCell, as discussed above, and then initiates timer T310);
However, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej does not teach:
and
determining, by the processor, whether a response with handover command for the measurement report is received from the network node before the timer is expired.
Paladugu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
and
determining, by the processor, whether a response with handover command for the measurement report is received from the network node before the timer is expired (see Paladugu, Fig. 3, col. 9, lines 31-41: If the handover command is received, at step 335 the UE 115 may stop the T312 timer and perform the handover as directed. Additionally, the T312 timer may be stopped based on other criteria, such as upon receiving N311 consecutive in-sync indications, upon initiating a connection re-establishment procedure, or expiration of the T310 timer.
If, however, a handover command is not received at step 335, the UE 120 may, at step 340, determine that the RLF timer has expired. This lack of a handover command and the expiration of the RLF timer may satisfy a radio link condition indicative of an RLF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the RL early recovery of the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej with the determination of a handover command response before timer expiration of Paladugu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved handling for radio link failure timers (see Paladugu, col. 2, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej, and further in view of Paladugu, teaches the method.
The combination of Orsino in view of Virtej does not teach, but Paladugu teaches:
further comprising:
stopping, by the processor, the timer in an event that the response with handover command for the measurement report is received from the network node before the timer is expired (see Paladugu, Fig. 3, col. 9, lines 31-33: If the handover command is received, at step 335 the UE 115 may stop the T312 timer and perform the handover as directed, and see Paladugu, col. 9, lines 10-17: At step 330, the UE 120 may detect whether a radio link condition indicative of an RLF has been satisfied, the determination prompted by the identified measurement reporting trigger. For example, this determination may be based on a determination of whether an RLC layer ACK for the UL message has been received, such as an RLC layer ACK in response to one or more MRMs or other UL radio link signaling messages; in this case, the timer may be stopped after reception of a handover command following measurement reporting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the RL early recovery of the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej with the stopping of the timer when the handover command is received of Paladugu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved handling for radio link failure timers (see Paladugu, col. 2, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej teaches the method.
However, the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej does not teach:
wherein RL early recovery further comprising:
transmitting, by the processor, a reestablishment request or a connection setup request to a target cell of a wireless network in an event that the prediction result indicates that the RL problem will occur, and a handover has no possibility to be performed.
Paladugu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein RL early recovery further comprises:
transmitting, by the processor, a reestablishment request or a connection setup request to a target cell of a wireless network in an event that the prediction result indicates that the RL problem will occur (see Paladugu, Fig. 3, col. 10, lines 10-21: At step 350, if the UE 120 has detected a condition indicative of RLF, and in some examples if the channel comparison condition is also satisfied, the UE 120 may initiate an RLF procedure based at least in part on the detected condition indicative of RLF, and where applicable based on the verification that the channel comparison condition has been satisfied. For example, at step 350 the UE may declare an RLF. In some examples the UE 120 may then initiate a connection re-establishment procedure to establish a connection to the target cell after initiating the RLF procedure; in this case, a re-establishment procedure (i.e. request) may be initiated with a target cell based on indication of a condition for RLF), and a handover has no possibility to be performed (see Paladugu, Fig. 3, col. 9, lines 37-41: If, however, a handover command is not received at step 335, the UE 120 may, at step 340, determine that the RLF timer has expired. This lack of a handover command and the expiration of the RLF timer may satisfy a radio link condition indicative of an RLF; in this case, a handover command not being received corresponds to handover not being possible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the RL early recovery of the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej with the transmission of a reestablishment when RL problems are indicated and handover is not possible of Paladugu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved handling for radio link failure timers (see Paladugu, col. 2, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Orsino in view Virtej, and further in view of Paladugu, teaches the method.
The combination of Orsino in view of Virtej does not teach, but Paladugu teaches:
wherein the handover has no possibility to be performed due to at least one of:
a measurement configuration for handover is not configured by a network node; or
the apparatus fails to receive a handover command after transmitting a measurement report to a network node; or
a downlink (DL) or uplink (UL) block error rate (BLER) is higher than a threshold; or
none of the measured neighboring cell meets a predefined signal quality (see Paladugu, Fig. 3, col. 9, lines 37-41: If, however, a handover command is not received at step 335, the UE 120 may, at step 340, determine that the RLF timer has expired. This lack of a handover command and the expiration of the RLF timer may satisfy a radio link condition indicative of an RLF, and see Paladugu, col. 8, lines 60-61: At step 316, the UE 120 may transmit an UL message, such as an MRM or other UL radio link signaling message; in this case, a handover command not being received corresponds to handover not being possible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the RL early recovery of the combination of Orsino in view of Virtej with the handover not being possible due to a failure to receive a handover command of Paladugu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved handling for radio link failure timers (see Paladugu, col. 2, lines 1-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hirano et al. (US 2012/0057474) teaches a method for the UE to increase the stickiness to the CSG cells based on the user preferences and application requirements.
Huang et al. (US 2011/0117908) teaches an apparatus for detecting a HandOver (HO)-related Radio Link Failure (RLF) in a wireless communication, and method for its operation.
Wang et al. (US 2013/0035101) teaches methods and arrangements in a UE and a RBSin a wireless communications system, enabling an efficient handover of the user equipment.
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 CALEB J BALLOWE whose telephone number is (571)270-0410. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 7:30-5.
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, Nishant B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/C.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419