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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23-24, 27-28, 30-31, 33-34, 37-38, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZTE et al. ( 3GPP TSG-RAN WG#113-e, R3-214061, “UE history information in MR-DC”), hereinafter, ZTE.
Regarding Claim 23, ZTE teaches,
A method performed by a master node for handling communication in a wireless communication network, -Section 2.3.2 (Fig. in section 2.3.2 how master node (MN) handles communication and determines which MN and secondary node (SN) is chosen based on correlation to communicate with UE)
the method comprising: obtaining user equipment history information (UHI) related to a primary cell (PCell) of a user equipment (UE); - Section 2.3.2 (recites, “…When the MN receives the SN UHI list, the MN can learn the time stay of each PCell of the MN UHI….”)
obtaining, from a secondary node further UHI related to a connected primary secondary cell (PSCell) of the UE; -Section 2.3.2 (recites, “…Through the time stay parameter carried by SN PScell UHI, MN can calculate the correspondence between MN PCell and SN PScell….)
correlating the obtained UHI and the obtained further UHI into a list of related PCells and PSCells. -Section 2.3.2 (recites, “Therefore, the MN can obtain the SN PScell information associated with each PCell by subtracting the time stay of the SN PScell from the Time stay of the MN PCell. According to this method, in the example shown in the figure above, the calculated correspondence between MN PCell list and PScell is as follows.” As shown in the following MN UHI corelates with SN UHI list)
PNG
media_image1.png
211
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24, ZTE teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
ZTE further teaches,
The method of claim 23, wherein correlating is based on one or more of the following:
a time stamp in the UHIs; -Section 2.4.2 (Therefore, necessary information is added to UHI to distinguish PScells in different time periods, such as adding a time stamp. Time stamp is designed as the time when the PScell is added. According to the time stamp and time stay parameters, SN can determine whether a ping pong error has occurred in the SN. “Time spent without SCG” discussed at last meeting solve the same issue. However, we see the parameter does not able to help MN to co-relate SN UHI with MN UHI. While for Time stamp information, it is easy for MN to co-related SN UHI with MN UHI. ) Proposal 8:Instead of “Time spent without SCG”, RAN3 to consider introduce Time stamp IE for SN UHI. )
an optional time stamp that is only used when a time UE stayed in cell- information element (IE) exceeds the predetermined range; repeating entries on exceeding a range of time UE stayed in cell- IE; an optional time stamp that is only used when the time UE stayed in cell- IE exceeds the predetermined range and a SN release time; and a time UE stayed in cell extended- IE with an extended range.
Regarding Claim 27, ZTE teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
ZTE further teaches,
The method of claim 23, further comprising using the correlated list for handling communication of the UE. -section 2.3.2, Table (Section 2.3.2 describes SN UHI is received at MN and correlate with the MN UHI through time stay parameter to make correlated list to communicate with the UE. It recites, “When receiving the SN UHI, the service duration of the UE by the MN PCell 2 can be confirmed. Through the time stay parameter of each PScell in SN UHI, the service duration of the UE connected to each SN PScell can also be confirmed. Therefore, the MN can obtain the SN PScell information associated with each PCell by subtracting the time stay of the SN PScell from the Time stay of the MN PCell.According to this method, in the example shown in the figure above, the calculated correspondence between MN PCell list and PScell is as follows.” The table shows the correlated list to be used for communication with the UE)
Regarding Claim 28, ZTE teaches the limitations of Claim 27.
ZTE further teaches,
The method of claim 27, wherein using comprises deciding whether to perform dual connectivity or not for the UE based on the correlated list. -section 2.3.1 (Recites, “Knowing the historical connection relationship between PCell and PScell helps to optimize the behavior triggered by MN RRM. For example, whether to choose the DC mode, choose the appropriate SN, etc.”)
Regarding Claim 30, ZTE teaches,
A method performed by a secondary node for handling communication in a wireless communication network, the method comprising: obtaining user equipment history information (UHI) related to a connected primary secondary cell (PSCell) of a user equipment, UE; -Section 2.1.5 (Proposal 2, 3), Section 2.4 (Section 2.1.5 recites, “ Proposal 2: SN collects UE’s UHI of S-NG-RAN node and the information saved by MN node.
Proposal 3: SN is responsible for collecting SN UHI, SN sends SN UHI to MN in the following XnAP and X2AP messages” Section 2.4 recites, “UE history information of secondary node includes: PSCell list, time UE stayed in the cell”)
and providing to a master node the obtained UHI for the UE. -Section 2.1.2, Section 2.1.5 (Section 2.1.2 recites, “source SN can provide latest SN UHI to the MN.” Section 2.1.5 recites, “Proposal 3: SN is responsible for collecting SN UHI, SN sends SN UHI to MN in the following XnAP and X2AP messages”)
Claim 31 is essentially the same as Claim 24. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 24 above which is rejected. Claim 31 is rejected under the same rational as claim 24.
Claim 33 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 23. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 23 above which is rejected. Claim 33 is rejected under the same rational as claim 23.
Claim 34 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 24. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 24 above which is rejected. Claim 33 is rejected under the same rational as claim 24.
Claim 37 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 27. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 27 above which is rejected. Claim 37 is rejected under the same rational as claim 27.
Claim 38 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 28. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 28 above which is rejected. Claim 38 is rejected under the same rational as claim 28.
Claim 40 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 30. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 30 above which is rejected. Claim 40 is rejected under the same rational as claim 30.
Claim 41 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 31. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 31 above which is rejected. Claim 41 is rejected under the same rational as claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 25-26, 32, 35-36, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE
in view of Ericsson (R3-206510, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #110, “(TP for SON BL CR TS36.413/38.413/36.423): UE History Information for Secondary Node
), hereinafter, Ericsson and further in view of NTT DOCOMO (R3-210497, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #111-e Electronic meeting, 25th Jan – 4th Feb, 2021, “Discussion on collection of UE history information in EN-DC”), hereinafter, NTT DOCOMO.
Regarding Claim 25, ZTE teaches the limitations of Claim 24.
ZTE further teaches,
The method of claim 24, further comprising adding the time stamp in the UHI; -Section 2.4.2 (recites, “Proposal 8:Instead of “Time spent without SCG”, RAN3 to consider introduce Time stamp IE for SN UHI.”)
ZTE explicitly does not teach,
the optional time stamp that is only used when a time UE stayed in cell- IE exceeds the predetermined range; the repeating entries on exceeding a range of time UE stayed in cell- IE; the optional time stamp that is only used when the time UE stayed in cell- IE exceeds the predetermined range and a SN release time; and/or the time UE stayed in cell extended- IE with the extended range.
However, in an analogous invention, Ericsson teaches,
the optional time stamp that is only used when a time UE stayed in cell- IE exceeds the predetermined range; (R3-206510) - Section 9.2.1.42(recites, “The UE History Information IE contains information about cells that a UE has been served by in active state prior to the target cell.
IE/Group Name
Presence
Range
IE type and reference
Semantics description
Criticality
Assigned Criticality
Last Visited Cell List
1 .. <maxnoOfCellsinUEHistoryInfo>
Most recent information is added to the top of this list.
-
-
>Last Visited Cell Information
M
9.2.1.43
-
-
Range bound
Explanation
maxnoOfCellsinUEHistoryInfo
Maximum length of the list. Value is 16.
The table puts a bound on the range and detail is given in 9.2.1.43, and 9.2.1.43a as it recites “The duration of the time the UE stayed in the cell in seconds. If the UE stays in a cell more than 4095s, this IE is set to 4095” i.e., the range is bounded.
the repeating entries on exceeding a range of time UE stayed in cell- IE; the optional time stamp that is only used when the time UE stayed in cell- IE exceeds the predetermined range
and/or the time UE stayed in cell extended- IE with the extended range. -Section 9.2.1.43a (the table shows Time for UE stayed in cell Enhanced Granularity is “The duration of the time the UE stayed in the cell in 1/10 seconds. If the UE stays in a cell more than 4095s, this IE is set to 40950.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “UE history information in MR-DC” proposed by ZTE to include the concept of “the optional time stamp that is only used when a time UE stayed in cell- IE exceeds the predetermined range; the repeating entries on exceeding a range of time UE stayed in cell- IE; the optional time stamp that is only used when the time UE stayed in cell- IE exceeds the predetermined range” of Ericsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently providing enhanced UE history information (section 1).
Although implicit, ZTE and Ericsson combination do not explicitly mention,
time stamp that is only used when the time UE stayed in cell- IE exceeds a
NTT DOCOMO teaches,
time stamp that is only used when the time UE stayed in cell- IE a SN release time; -Section 2, proposal 3 (recites, “a time stamp recording is beneficial for network (MN or SN) to recognize the timing DC setup/release of PCell and PSCell so as to help network to correlate the UHI (MN) and UHI (SN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “UE history information in MR-DC” proposed by ZTE to include the concept of “time stamp that is only used when the time UE stayed in cell- IE exceeds a” of NTT DOCOMO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide UE history information in EN-DC, load balancing enhancement, MRO for SN change failure, RACH Optimization enhancements efficiently providing enhanced UE history information (section 1).
Claim 26 is essentially the same as Claim 25. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 25 which is rejected above. Claim 26 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 25.
Claim 32 is essentially the same as Claim 25. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 25 which is rejected above. Claim 32 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 25.
Claim 35 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 25. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 25 above which is rejected. Claim 35 is rejected under the same rational as claim 25.
Claim 36 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 26. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 26 above which is rejected. Claim 36 is rejected under the same rational as claim 26.
Claim 42 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 32. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 32 above which is rejected. Claim 42 is rejected under the same rational as claim 32.
Claims 29, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE
in view of CATT et al.( 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #113-e , R3-213502, 16 - 26 August 2021 E-Meeting, “Enhancement of UE history information in MR-DC scenario”), hereinafter, CATT.
Regarding Claim 29, ZTE teaches the limitations of Claim 23.
Although implicit, ZTE does not implicitly teach,
The method of claim 23, further comprising providing the correlated list to another network node for handling mobility of the UE.
However, in an analogous invention, CATT teaches,
The method of claim 23, further comprising providing the correlated list to another network node for handling mobility of the UE. -Section 2.1.1 (recites, “When target MN receive the correlated MN and SN UHI from source MN, it is obviously that MN and SN correlated UHI is useful for target SN to select PSCell as illustrated in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 UE UHI in MR-DC scenario
If UE is in the coverage of PCell 0, as the blue line indicated, the PSCell change history may be PSCell A -> PSCell B, UE would stay in PSCell B for a relatively long period of time. With this UE history information received, it is fine to handover the UE from PSCell A to PSCell B.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “UE history information in MR-DC” proposed by ZTE to include the concept of “providing the correlated list to another network node for handling mobility of the UE.” of CATT. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid unnecessary information transferred on the Xn interface, a flag could be introduced in SN Addition Response message to indicate whether SN needs to be informed on each intra-MN PCell change (Section 2.1.1, Page 2).
Claim 39 the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 29. The Applicant’s attention is drawn towards Claim 29 above which is rejected. Claim 39 is rejected under the same rational as claim 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475