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 .
This office action is in response to application filed on 02/16/2024.
Claims 16-35 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 non-obviousness.
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US20210176682A1) (hereinafter "Gu") in view of Da Silva et al (WO2021070162A1) (hereinafter "Da Silva").
Regarding claim 16, Gu discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory ([0061] The UE 300 may also include processing circuitry 306 and memory 308 arranged to perform the operations described herein.);
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to ([0061] The UE 300 may also include processing circuitry 306 and memory 308 arranged to perform the operations described herein.):
receive, from a network node, conditional handover (CHO) configuration information associated with a candidate cell of the UE (Fig. 2: CHO configuration (condition e.g. A3/A5 event + RRCReconfiguration*)), wherein the CHO configuration information includes an execution condition comprising a first event and a second event; and ([0010] In accordance with some embodiments, a UE may decode a radio-resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message comprising a conditional handover (CHO) configuration (CHO-Config) (i.e., condRRCReconfig) (including a CHO IE). In these embodiments, the CHO configuration may identify a CHO configuration for at least one target candidate cell (i.e., a Pcell). The CHO configuration may include two or more CHO triggering events for an entry condition.)
Gu fails to disclose a user equipment (UE), comprising: transmit, to the network node, assistant information related to at least one of the first event and the second event.
However, Da Silva discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising: transmit, to the network node, assistant information related to at least one of the first event and the second event (Pg. 56: At step 618, the wireless device transmits the measurement report to a network node. The network node may use the reported information to modify the CHO configuration according to any of the embodiments and examples described herein (e.g., add, modify, and/or delete candidate cells).).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create a user equipment (UE), comprising: transmit, to the network node, assistant information related to at least one of the first event and the second event.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 17, Gu fails to disclose the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: in response to a presence of a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure, perform a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to a cell.
However, Da Silva discloses the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: in response to a presence of a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure, perform a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to a cell (Pg. 2: In the diagram on the left, a measurement report transmitted from the UE to the source network node does not reach the source network node because of bad radio conditions. The radio conditions get worse and the UE eventually declares radio link failure (RLF) and performs a reestablishment procedure.).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: in response to a presence of a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure, perform a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to a cell.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 18, Gu fails to disclose the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
transmit, to the re-established cell, an indication of an available state of the assistant information;
receive a UE information request message from the re-established cell; and
transmit, to the re-established cell, a UE information response message including the assistant information.
However, Da Silva discloses the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
transmit, to the re-established cell, an indication of an available state of the assistant information (Pg. 56: The method may begin at step 612, where the wireless device (e.g., wireless device 110) obtains an indication that indicates whether the wireless device includes measurement information for the one or more CHO candidate cells in the measurement report.);
receive a UE information request message from the re-established cell; and (Pg. 57: The method may begin at step 652, where the network node (e.g., network node 160) transmits an indication to the wireless device that indicates whether the wireless device includes measurement information for one or more CHO candidate cells in the measurement report.)
transmit, to the re-established cell, a UE information response message including the assistant information (Pg. 57: At step 654, the network node receives a measurement report from a wireless device. The measurement report comprises measurement information for one or more CHO candidate cells.).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit, to the re-established cell, an indication of an available state of the assistant information; receive a UE information request message from the re-established cell; and transmit, to the re-established cell, a UE information response message including the assistant information.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 19, Gu fails to disclose the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of:
a measurement result of a serving cell of the UE if the first event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled;
a measurement result of the candidate cell if the first event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled;
the measurement result of the serving cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled; and
the measurement result of the candidate cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled.
However, Da Silva discloses the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of:
a measurement result of a serving cell of the UE if the first event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
a measurement result of the candidate cell if the first event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
the measurement result of the serving cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled; and (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.)
the measurement result of the candidate cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled (Pg. 3: To achieve this, the handover command may be associated with a condition (e.g., based on radio conditions possibly similar to the ones associated to an A3 event), where a given neighbor becomes 'X' dB better than the serving cell. As soon as the condition is fulfilled, the UE executes the handover in accordance with the provided handover command.).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of: a measurement result of a serving cell of the UE if the first event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled; a measurement result of the candidate cell if the first event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled; the measurement result of the serving cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled; and the measurement result of the candidate cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 20, Gu fails to disclose the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of:
a measurement result of a serving cell of the UE if the first event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled;
a measurement result of the candidate cell if the first event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled;
the measurement result of the serving cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled; and
the measurement result of the candidate cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled.
However, Da Silva discloses the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of:
a measurement result of a serving cell of the UE if the first event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
a measurement result of the candidate cell if the first event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
the measurement result of the serving cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled; and (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.)
the measurement result of the candidate cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled (Pg. 3: To achieve this, the handover command may be associated with a condition (e.g., based on radio conditions possibly similar to the ones associated to an A3 event), where a given neighbor becomes 'X' dB better than the serving cell. As soon as the condition is fulfilled, the UE executes the handover in accordance with the provided handover command.).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of: a measurement result of a serving cell of the UE if the first event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled; a measurement result of the candidate cell if the first event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled; the measurement result of the serving cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled; and the measurement result of the candidate cell if the second event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 21, Gu discloses the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
in response to the first event considered by the UE to be fulfilled, transmit, to the network node, information indicating that the first event is in a fulfilled state; and ([0020] Together with the command, the UE also receives an associated entry condition to be monitored. When the entry condition is fulfilled, the UE applies the previously stored handover command, as if the network would have just sent it, instead of first sending a measurement report (that could fail to be transmitted) and then waiting to receive the command (which may fail to be received).)
transmit, to the network node, information associated with the first event ([0021] For example, the network can configure the UE to transmit a measurement report when a neighbor cell becomes an offset better than the serving cell, as a way to indicate to the network that a handover may be needed.),
wherein the information associated with the first event includes at least one of:
information regarding a timer to trigger (TTT) (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
a measurement object specific offset of a reference signal of a neighbor cell of the UE ([0021] The entry condition that defines the criteria to apply the stored handover command is based on the quality of the serving cell(s) and neighbor cells, somewhat similar to the condition that in previous releases leads the UE to transmit a measurement report when the condition is fulfilled. For example, the network can configure the UE to transmit a measurement report when a neighbor cell becomes an offset better than the serving cell, as a way to indicate to the network that a handover may be needed. In conditional handover, a similar condition can be configured, except that instead of transmitting the measurement report, the UE applies the stored message.);
a cell specific offset of the neighbor cell (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
a measurement object specific offset of a primary cell of a master or secondary cell group (SpCell) of the UE (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
a cell specific offset of the SpCell; and (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.)
an offset parameter for the first event (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.).
Regarding claim 22, Gu discloses the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of:
an entry condition of the second event is met if the first event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled; and ([0010] The CHO configuration may include two or more CHO triggering events for an entry condition. … In these embodiments, UE may apply the stored CHO configuration to the target candidate cell (i.e., now the triggered cell) when both of the two CHO triggering events remain fulfilled upon expiration of the both timers (i.e., the execution condition is satisfied/met when both of the CHO triggering events are simultaneous fulfilled). [0013] In some embodiments, the two or more CHO triggering events comprise at least an Event A3 and an Event A5. These embodiments are discussed in more detail below.)
the entry condition of the second event is not met if the first event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled ([0011] In some embodiments, the UE also be configured to refrain from applying the stored CHO configuration to the target candidate cell when both of the two CHO triggering events do not remain fulfilled upon expiration of the both timers (i.e., the entry condition is not satisfied since both of the CHO triggering events are not fulfilled).).
Regarding claim 23, Gu discloses the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of:
a maximum time period of meeting an entry condition of the second event while the first event is in a fulfilled state; and (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.)
a maximum time period of meeting an entry condition of the first event while the second event is in the fulfilled state ([0010] The UE may monitor measurement quantities of the target candidate cell for the entry condition to determine if any of the CHO triggering events are met, start a first count-down (i.e., time-to-trigger (TTT)) timer when the entry condition of a first of the CHO triggering events is met, and start a second count-down (TTT) timer when the entry condition of a second of the CHO triggering events is met.).
Regarding claim 24, Gu discloses the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of:
absolute time when the first event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled ([0010] In these embodiments, UE may apply the stored CHO configuration to the target candidate cell (i.e., now the triggered cell) when both of the two CHO triggering events remain fulfilled upon expiration of the both timers (i.e., the execution condition is satisfied/met when both of the CHO triggering events are simultaneous fulfilled). In these embodiments, the stored CHO configuration may be applied to the target candidate cell if the first of the CHO triggering events remains fulfilled when the second of the CHO triggering events is met.);
absolute time when the first event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
absolute time when the second event is considered by the UE to be fulfilled; and (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.)
absolute time when the second event is considered by the UE to be not fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.).
Regarding claim 25, Gu discloses the UE, wherein the assistant information includes at least one of:
a time duration since the first event considered to be fulfilled until the first event considered to be not fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
a time duration since the first event considered to be fulfilled until the second event considered to be fulfilled; and ([0010] The UE may monitor measurement quantities of the target candidate cell for the entry condition to determine if any of the CHO triggering events are met, start a first count-down (i.e., time-to-trigger (TTT)) timer when the entry condition of a first of the CHO triggering events is met, and start a second count-down (TTT) timer when the entry condition of a second of the CHO triggering events is met.)
a time duration since the first event considered to be not fulfilled until the second event considered to be fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.).
Regarding claim 26, Gu fails to disclose the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: perform a CHO procedure in response to meeting the execution condition; and transmit a successful handover report (SHR) in response to meeting a trigger condition.
However, Da Silva discloses the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
perform a CHO procedure in response to meeting the execution condition; and (Pg. 3: For CHO in NR, the baseline operation for CHO assumes a handover command type of message contains handover triggering condition(s) and dedicated RRC configuration(s). AUE accesses the prepared target when the relevant condition is met.)
transmit a successful handover report (SHR) in response to meeting a trigger condition (Pg. 3: The baseline operation for CHO assumes the source RAN remains responsible for RRC until the UE successfully sends RRC Reconfiguration Complete message to the target RAN.).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create the UE, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: perform a CHO procedure in response to meeting the execution condition; and transmit a successful handover report (SHR) in response to meeting a trigger condition.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 27, Gu discloses the UE, wherein the trigger condition is at least one of:
a leaving condition of the first event is met when the UE triggers to perform the CHO procedure; and ([0057] When first and second event entry condition met, TTT starts. [0058] Either condition leaves, TTT stops [0059] When TTT expires, the execution condition is met.)
a leaving condition of the second event is met when the UE triggers to perform the CHO procedure ([0057] When first and second event entry condition met, TTT starts. [0058] Either condition leaves, TTT stops [0059] When TTT expires, the execution condition is met.).
Regarding claim 28, Gu discloses the UE, wherein the trigger condition is at least one of:
a time duration since the first event considered to be fulfilled until the second event considered to be fulfilled is greater than or equal to a first threshold; and (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.)
a time duration since the second event considered to be fulfilled until the first event considered to be fulfilled is greater than or equal to a second threshold ([0012] In these embodiments, the execution condition for the target candidate cell is satisfied when the second CHO triggering event is fulfilled if the first CHO triggering event remains fulfilled. In these embodiments, two CHO triggering events are handled together with separate TTT timers. The first event must still be valid when a second TTT timer expires to satisfy an entry condition to a new PCell).
Regarding claim 29, Gu discloses the UE, wherein the SHR includes at least one of:
a time duration of consecutively meeting a leaving condition of the first event when the UE performs the CHO procedure (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
a time duration of consecutively meeting a leaving condition of the second event when the UE performs the CHO procedure (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
a time duration since the first event considered to be fulfilled until the second event considered to be fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
a time duration since the first event is considered to be fulfilled until the first event is considered to be not fulfilled ([0056] The timer A is restarted when the situation of either trigger event is changed from “satisfy the entry condition” to “not satisfy the entry condition”.);
absolute time when the first event is considered to be fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
absolute time when the first event is considered to be not fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
absolute time when the second event is considered to be fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.);
absolute time when the second event is considered to be not fulfilled; and (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.)
a time duration since the first event is considered to be not fulfilled until the second event is considered to be fulfilled (The examiner does not select this because of the "at least one of" statement.).
Regarding claim 30, Gu discloses a processor for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to ([0061] The UE 300 may also include processing circuitry 306 and memory 308 arranged to perform the operations described herein.):
receive, from a network node, conditional handover (CHO) configuration information associated with a candidate cell of the processor, wherein the CHO configuration information includes an execution condition comprising a first event and a second event; and ([0010] In accordance with some embodiments, a UE may decode a radio-resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message comprising a conditional handover (CHO) configuration (CHO-Config) (i.e., condRRCReconfig) (including a CHO IE). In these embodiments, the CHO configuration may identify a CHO configuration for at least one target candidate cell (i.e., a Pcell). The CHO configuration may include two or more CHO triggering events for an entry condition.).
Gu fails to disclose a processor for wireless communication, comprising: transmit, to the network node, assistant information related to at least one of the first event and the second event.
However, Da Silva discloses a processor for wireless communication, comprising: transmit, to the network node, assistant information related to at least one of the first event and the second event (Pg. 56: At step 618, the wireless device transmits the measurement report to a network node. The network node may use the reported information to modify the CHO configuration according to any of the embodiments and examples described herein (e.g., add, modify, and/or delete candidate cells).).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create a processor for wireless communication, comprising: transmit, to the network node, assistant information related to at least one of the first event and the second event.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 31, Gu fails to disclose the processor, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the processor to: in response to a presence of a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure, perform a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to a cell.
However, Da Silva discloses the processor, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the processor to: in response to a presence of a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure, perform a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to a cell (Pg. 2: In the diagram on the left, a measurement report transmitted from the UE to the source network node does not reach the source network node because of bad radio conditions. The radio conditions get worse and the UE eventually declares radio link failure (RLF) and performs a reestablishment procedure.).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create the processor, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the processor to: in response to a presence of a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure, perform a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to a cell.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 32, Gu fails to disclose the processor, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the processor to: perform a CHO procedure in response to meeting the execution condition; and transmit a successful handover report (SHR) in response to meeting a trigger condition.
However, Da Silva discloses the processor, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the processor to:
perform a CHO procedure in response to meeting the execution condition; and (Pg. 3: For CHO in NR, the baseline operation for CHO assumes a handover command type of message contains handover triggering condition(s) and dedicated RRC configuration(s). AUE accesses the prepared target when the relevant condition is met.)
transmit a successful handover report (SHR) in response to meeting a trigger condition (Pg. 3: The baseline operation for CHO assumes the source RAN remains responsible for RRC until the UE successfully sends RRC Reconfiguration Complete message to the target RAN.).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create the processor, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the processor to: perform a CHO procedure in response to meeting the execution condition; and transmit a successful handover report (SHR) in response to meeting a trigger condition.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 33, Gu discloses a method performed by a User Equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving, from a network node, conditional handover (CHO) configuration information associated with a candidate cell of the UE, wherein the CHO configuration information includes an execution condition comprising a first event and a second event; and ([0010] In accordance with some embodiments, a UE may decode a radio-resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message comprising a conditional handover (CHO) configuration (CHO-Config) (i.e., condRRCReconfig) (including a CHO IE). In these embodiments, the CHO configuration may identify a CHO configuration for at least one target candidate cell (i.e., a Pcell). The CHO configuration may include two or more CHO triggering events for an entry condition.)
Gu fails to disclose the method comprising: transmit, to the network node, assistant information related to at least one of the first event and the second event.
However, Da Silva discloses the method comprising: transmit, to the network node, assistant information related to at least one of the first event and the second event (Pg. 56: At step 618, the wireless device transmits the measurement report to a network node. The network node may use the reported information to modify the CHO configuration according to any of the embodiments and examples described herein (e.g., add, modify, and/or delete candidate cells).).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create the method comprising: transmit, to the network node, assistant information related to at least one of the first event and the second event.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 34, Gu fails to method, further comprising: in response to a presence of a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure, performing a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to a cell.
However, Da Silva discloses method of claim 33, further comprising: in response to a presence of a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure, performing a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to a cell (Pg. 2: In the diagram on the left, a measurement report transmitted from the UE to the source network node does not reach the source network node because of bad radio conditions. The radio conditions get worse and the UE eventually declares radio link failure (RLF) and performs a reestablishment procedure.).
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create method, further comprising: in response to a presence of a radio link failure (RLF) or a handover failure, performing a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to a cell.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Regarding claim 35, Gu fails to disclose the method, further comprising: performing a CHO procedure in response to meeting the execution condition; and transmitting a successful handover report (SHR) in response to meeting a trigger condition.
However, Da Silva discloses method, further comprising:
performing a CHO procedure in response to meeting the execution condition; and (Pg. 3: For CHO in NR, the baseline operation for CHO assumes a handover command type of message contains handover triggering condition(s) and dedicated RRC configuration(s). AUE accesses the prepared target when the relevant condition is met.)
transmitting a successful handover report (SHR) in response to meeting a trigger condition (Pg. 3: The baseline operation for CHO assumes the source RAN remains responsible for RRC until the UE successfully sends RRC Reconfiguration Complete message to the target RAN.)..
Gu and Da Silva are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of establishing events/thresholds to trigger conditional handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Gu with Da Silva to create the method, further comprising: performing a CHO procedure in response to meeting the execution condition; and transmitting a successful handover report (SHR) in response to meeting a trigger condition.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve the user equipment retainability performance by reducing the probability of radio link failure or handover failure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shrestha et al (US20200383022A1) discloses a method to signal and execute conditional handover based on a conditional handover execution message, the execution message including a plurality of execution conditions to trigger execution of a handover (HO) of the UE from the RAN node to a target RAN node.
Balan et al (US20210029600A1) discloses techniques for determination of conditional handover failure.
Ishii et al (US20220217597A1) discloses techniques for conditional handovers and measurement reports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D LITTLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5748. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
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 Divecha can be reached on 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.
/D LITTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419