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 .
Introduction
This is a non-final office action in response to Application Number 18/687,647 filed on 28 February 2024. The instant application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/074983 filed on 10 September 2021.
A preliminary amendment was also filed on 28 February 2024 in which claims 40-41 are amended, claims 1-39 and 43-51 are cancelled, and claims 52-68 are added. The claims 40-42 and 52-68 are pending in this application.
The applicant of record is Nokia Technologies Oy and the inventors of record are Umur Karabulut, Ingo Viering, Sina Khatibi, and Andreas Lobinger.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 22 May 2024 and 10 July 2025 were filed after the initial filing date of the application on 28 February 2024 and before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the length and the inclusion of legal terminology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The claims have been considered according to the latest Patent Eligibility Guidelines and are considered eligible.
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.
Claims 40-42 and 52-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catovic et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0173626) in view of Dudda et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0119977).
Regarding claim 40, Catovic disclosed an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (see Catovic Fig. 19, [0156]: “FIG. 19 illustrates a wireless device 1910 (e.g., an access point) and a wireless device 1950 (e.g., an access terminal) of a sample MIMO system 1900. At the device 1910, traffic data for a number of data streams is provided from a data source 1912 to a transmit (TX) data processor 1914. Each data stream may then be transmitted over a respective transmit antenna.”); and
at least one memory including computer program code (see Catovic Fig. 19, [0157]: an access point includes “…A data memory 1932 may store program code, data, and other information used by the processor 1930 or other components of the device 1910…”; [0162]: access terminal includes “…A data memory 1972 may store program code, data, and other information used by the processor 1970 or other components of the device 1950.”);
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
determine, by a user equipment, at least one filter measurement of a signal received from a source radio node, and/or at least one filter measurement of a signal received from at least one target radio node (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “As represented by block 506, the access terminal re-establishes the connection at the second cell. Here, the access terminal selects the access point of the second cell for re-establishing the connection after the RLF (e.g., based on received signal strengths of access points detected by the access terminal). As discussed herein, in conjunction with the re-establishment of the connection, the second cell (e.g., second access point) receives a message from the access terminal that indicates that the access terminal experienced RLF at the first cell (e.g., a first access point). Here, the message identifies the cell (and/or access point) at which the RLF occurred.” | Fig. 12, [0123]: “As represented by blocks 1202 and 1204 of FIG. 12, a cell (an access point) may determine (e.g., monitor) indications of signal quality (e.g., received signal strengths) of itself and of other surrounding cells as reported by any access terminals whose measurement reports were received by the cell. FIGS. 13A and 13B depict sample graphs of reported quality indications Qn and Qs for a serving cell (line Mn) and a target cell (line Ms), respectively. These quality indications may correspond to, for example, reference signal received quality (RSRQ), reference signal received power (RSRP), or some other suitable quality metric.”; Fig. 13, [0124]: “The graphs illustrate certain parameters that may be used to determine when to trigger a measurement report. For example, the offset (e.g., hysteresis) may indicate the amount by which the target quality indication must exceed the serving cell indication before measurement reporting is triggered. In addition, time-to-trigger (TTT) may indicate the minimum amount of time that the above condition must be continuously met before a measurement report is sent. In some cases, the indications of blocks 1202 and 1204 may be measured when a measurement report is sent by an access terminal.”);
in response to a radio link failure with the source radio node, initiate a re-establishment procedure to become connected to one of the at least one target radio node, to obtain access to a target cell of the at least one target radio node (see Catovic Fig. 2, [0047]: “In FIG. 2, an access terminal 202 is in the vicinity of an access point 204 and an access point 206. Initially, the access terminal 202 is connected to the access point 204 (e.g., a cell of the access point 204). Here, RLF may occur as a result of inadequate configuration of handover triggering parameters at the access point 204 (e.g., as discussed above). In the event the signal quality provided by the access point 206 is sufficient to maintain a call for the access terminal 202, the access terminal 202 may re-establish the connection at the access point 206 (e.g., at a cell of the access point 206).” | [0049]: “Referring initially to the first type of too late handover, if the access terminal 202 re-establishes the connection at the access point 206 after RLF at the access point 204, the access point 206 reports this RLF event to the access point 204 via an RLF report message (as represented by the dashed line in FIG. 2). In other words, if the access terminal 202 re-establishes (or attempts to re-establish) the radio link at the access point 206 after RLF at the access point 204, the access point 206 reports this RLF event to the access point 204. Here, the access point 206 may use an identifier (e.g., physical cell identifier, PCI) provided by the access terminal during connection re-establishment to identify the previous serving cell/access point (or possible candidates in the case of identifier confusion) for the access terminal. The access point 204 may then detect a too late handover based on this RLF report message. For example, the access point 204 may match the correct context (based on an access terminal identifier included in the RLF report message), and analyze the possible root cause of the RLF which preceded the re-establishment request.” | Fig. 12, [0125]: “As represented by block 1206, the cell may identify a too late handover or a too early handover (e.g., a too late or too early handover signature) based on the determined indications of signal quality. For example, a signature of a likelihood of too late handovers may be identified based on whether Qs is low and/or based on whether the difference (Ds-n) between the quality indications when the measurement report is sent by the access terminal is large as compared to the offset (e.g., the difference exceeds a defined offset by a defined amount). This condition is depicted in FIG. 13A. Conversely, a signature of a likelihood of too early handovers may be identified based on whether Qs is not low and/or based on whether the difference (Ds-n) between the quality indications when the measurement report is sent is small as compared to the offset (e.g., the difference exceeds a defined offset by less than a defined amount). This condition is depicted in FIG. 13B.”); and
transmit a radio link failure report to the at least one target radio node (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “…As discussed herein, in conjunction with the re-establishment of the connection, the second cell (e.g., second access point) receives a message from the access terminal that indicates that the access terminal experienced RLF at the first cell (e.g., a first access point). Here, the message identifies the cell (and/or access point) at which the RLF occurred.”), the radio link failure report comprising: the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the source radio node, and/or the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the at least one target radio node (see Dudda combination below);
wherein the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the source radio node and/or the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the at least one target radio node is configured to be used for a root-cause analysis (see Catovic [0049]: “the access point 204 may match the correct context (based on an access terminal identifier included in the RLF report message), and analyze the possible root cause of the RLF which preceded the re-establishment request.”) related to at least one unfixable too-late handover or other type of problematic handover (see Catovic [0049]: the access point 204 may detect a too late handover based on the RLF report message).
Catovic did not explicitly disclose “the radio link failure report comprising: the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the source radio node, and/or the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the at least one target radio node”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the type of measurements included in an RLF report is a matter of implementation choice and that the included measurements are filtered from all of the measurements that were taken, e.g., based on a threshold.
However in a related art, Dudda disclosed that the RLF report comprises source and target cell measurements (see Dudda [0077]: “Three main messages, namely RLF report included in RRC: UEInformationResponse message (between the UE and eNBs)…are used by MRO to communicate/gather information regarding Too Early Handover, Too Late Handover and Handover to the wrong cell. See e.g. 3GPP TS 36.300 V12.0.0, TS 36.331 V12.0.0 and TS 36.423 V12.0.0.” | [0078]: “…The eNB to which the UE is reconnecting to, either through a successful RRC re-establishment or via RRCConnectionSetup after IDLE mode, can ask for more detailed information about the failure after the connection is completed. This is done via the UE Information Request procedure, where the eNB can ask for RLF report…” | [0079]: “The UE 402 responds by sending a UEInformationResponse message 404 with a detailed RLF report which can include information such as (see 3GPP TS 36.331 V12.0.0):”; [0080]: “Measurement result of the last served cell before RLF; Measurement result of the neighbor cells performed before RLF; Location info, which can include last co-ordinates as well as velocity of the UE when RLF was detected; E-CGI (and if that is not available Physical Cell ID (PCI)) of the cell where RLF occurred; E-CGI of the cell that the re-establishment attempt was made at; if the RLF occurred after the reception of a HO command”).
Dudda also disclosed that a filter is applied to the measurements (see Dudda [0075]: “A threshold indicating how much higher or lower the reference signal of a certain candidate cell needs to be before it is reported to the serving cell; a threshold indicating how much higher or lower the reference signal of the serving cell needs to be before a mobility event may be triggered; a filter coefficient applied to the measurement before evaluation triggers are considered; a time to trigger meaning the time window within which the triggering condition needs to be continuously met in order to trigger the reporting event in the UE.”).
OAM network nodes can perform MRO operations (see Dudda Fig. 7, [0093]: “FIG. 7 schematically illustrates an exemplary network architecture in which concepts of the invention may be applied. The exemplary network architecture comprises a management system. The node elements (NE), also referred to as eNodeB, are managed by a domain manager (DM), also referred to as an operation and support system (OSS). A DM may further be managed by a network manager (NM). Two NEs are interfaced by an X2, whereas the interface between two DMs is referred to as Itf-P2P. The management system may configure the network elements, as well as receive observations associated to features in the network elements. For example, DM observes and configures NEs, while NM observes and configures DM, as well as NE via DM. Any function that automatically optimizes mobility parameters can in principle be execute in the NE, DM, or the NMS (Network Management System)” | [0092]: “Optimization, MRO, function(s). In FIG. 6 a typical MRO scenario is illustrated. A UE 601 is in the beginning connected to a Source eNB 602 and undergoes a successful handover to a Failure eNB 603. The connection to the Failure eNB 603 fails and the UE 601 reestablishes in a Reestablishment eNB 604. Then, the UE 601 may send the RLF report 605 to the Reestablishment eNB 604, which forwards it with further information within the RLF indication 606 to the Failure eNB 603. MRO mechanisms may be applied in this eNB 603. In case the connection of the UE 601 had failed quickly after the handover to the Failure eNB 603, it is further beneficial to inform the Source eNB 602 about it with the Handover report 607 which includes also the RLF report. In this case also the Source eNB 602 will apply MRO mechanisms. In some parts of the disclosure, both Source eNB 602 and Failure eNB 603 are denoted as “MRO-applying network entities”. This does not exclude that those MRO mechanism may be partly applied in further network nodes (e.g. OAM nodes, see below), which may influence parameter settings in Source eNBs and Failure eNB. Such a MRO mechanism may be implemented in any node of a cellular network. One may also refer to the network elements by network node.”).
The root cause determination makes use of the received RLF reports and may be performed by OAM nodes (see Fig. 8, [0100]: “…In a step S801, a UE experiences a radio link failure, RLF. In a step S802, a network node receives an RLF report. The RLF report is typically send from the UE to the network node. The RLF report shall comprise combined handover and RLF information of the UE. An example of such combined information is the T312 expiry in e.g. an RLF report. In a step S803, the network node considers the RLF report and deduces UE's handover and RLM configuration to analyze RLF root cause in MRO mechanism to optimize mobility robustness by adapting handover and RLM parameters in affected cells.”, [0107]: “The inclusion of this cause value allows determining if the failure occurred after a measurement report was sent by the UE (since the entry conditions of T312 are both measurement report transmission as well as radio link failure state, expiry of T312 is therefore only possible if both conditions hold). This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE. Hence, from this information it can be deducted that the UE might have moved out of serving cell coverage shortly after reporting a measurement report. In case enough instances of failures including such information are recorded, the MRO algorithm (or any other algorithm using such information, e.g. in OAM, Operation Administration and Maintenance) may therefore infer that a possible adjustment to prevent such failure could be to anticipate signaling of the measurement report, i.e. to anticipate the entering condition for the mobility event(s) possibly triggering measurement reports. The latter can be achieved for example by increasing the threshold on the serving cell signal; or decreasing threshold on target cell signal; or modifying the hysteresis values in a way to anticipate the event reporting; or reducing the time to trigger for starting the handover procedures (i.e. triggering HO command signaling; or parts or all of the above.” | [0126]: “Subsequently an interaction with the OAM system is discussed. In another embodiment the enhanced information on failure events, for example the enhanced RLF reports or part of the information included in it, collected by eNBs can be forwarded to the OAM system and analyzed therein. On the basis of mobility failure statistics signaled by the eNB to the OAM, the OAM system can take decisions on how to modify mobility parameters similar to those described in embodiments above. The OAM system can then signal to the eNBs in need of modification of mobility parameters, or in general of optimized configuration, new parameters calculated on the bases of the reported statistics. For example, the OAM may signal new values of the Cell Individual Offsets relative to one or more neighbor cell relation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 41, Catovic disclosed an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (see Catovic Fig. 19, [0156]: “FIG. 19 illustrates a wireless device 1910 (e.g., an access point) and a wireless device 1950 (e.g., an access terminal) of a sample MIMO system 1900. At the device 1910, traffic data for a number of data streams is provided from a data source 1912 to a transmit (TX) data processor 1914. Each data stream may then be transmitted over a respective transmit antenna.”); and
at least one memory including computer program code (see Catovic Fig. 19, [0157]: an access point includes “…A data memory 1932 may store program code, data, and other information used by the processor 1930 or other components of the device 1910…”; [0162]: access terminal includes “…A data memory 1972 may store program code, data, and other information used by the processor 1970 or other components of the device 1950.”);
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive from at least one target radio node an indication of a radio link failure experienced with a user equipment (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “…As discussed herein, in conjunction with the re-establishment of the connection, the second cell (e.g., second access point) receives a message from the access terminal that indicates that the access terminal experienced RLF at the first cell (e.g., a first access point). Here, the message identifies the cell (and/or access point) at which the RLF occurred.”);
wherein the radio link failure indication (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “…As discussed herein, in conjunction with the re-establishment of the connection, the second cell (e.g., second access point) receives a message from the access terminal that indicates that the access terminal experienced RLF at the first cell (e.g., a first access point). Here, the message identifies the cell (and/or access point) at which the RLF occurred.”) comprises: at least one filter measurement of a signal received with the user equipment from a source radio node, and/or at least one filter measurement of a signal received with the user equipment from the at least one target radio node (see Dudda combination below);
determine using a root cause analysis (see Catovic [0049]: “the access point 204 may match the correct context (based on an access terminal identifier included in the RLF report message), and analyze the possible root cause of the RLF which preceded the re-establishment request.”) whether the root cause of the radio link failure was due to at least one unfixable too-late handover (see Catovic [0049]: the access point 204 may detect a too late handover based on the RLF report message); and
transmit (see Dudda combination below) a result of the root cause analysis to a network element (see Catovic [0049]: “the access point 204 may match the correct context (based on an access terminal identifier included in the RLF report message), and analyze the possible root cause of the RLF which preceded the re-establishment request.”; the access point 204 may detect a too late handover based on the RLF report message).
Catovic did not explicitly disclose that the RLF indication “comprises: at least one filter measurement of a signal received with the user equipment from a source radio node, and/or at least one filter measurement of a signal received with the user equipment from the at least one target radio node” and that the result of the root cause analysis is “transmit[ted] … to a network element”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the type of measurements included in an RLF report is a matter of implementation choice and that the included measurements are filtered from all of the measurements that were taken, e.g., based on a threshold.
However in a related art, Dudda disclosed that the RLF report comprises source and target cell measurements (see Dudda [0077]: “Three main messages, namely RLF report included in RRC: UEInformationResponse message (between the UE and eNBs)…are used by MRO to communicate/gather information regarding Too Early Handover, Too Late Handover and Handover to the wrong cell. See e.g. 3GPP TS 36.300 V12.0.0, TS 36.331 V12.0.0 and TS 36.423 V12.0.0.” | [0078]: “…The eNB to which the UE is reconnecting to, either through a successful RRC re-establishment or via RRCConnectionSetup after IDLE mode, can ask for more detailed information about the failure after the connection is completed. This is done via the UE Information Request procedure, where the eNB can ask for RLF report…” | [0079]: “The UE 402 responds by sending a UEInformationResponse message 404 with a detailed RLF report which can include information such as (see 3GPP TS 36.331 V12.0.0):”; [0080]: “Measurement result of the last served cell before RLF; Measurement result of the neighbor cells performed before RLF; Location info, which can include last co-ordinates as well as velocity of the UE when RLF was detected; E-CGI (and if that is not available Physical Cell ID (PCI)) of the cell where RLF occurred; E-CGI of the cell that the re-establishment attempt was made at; if the RLF occurred after the reception of a HO command”).
Dudda also disclosed that a filter is applied to the measurements (see Dudda [0075]: “A threshold indicating how much higher or lower the reference signal of a certain candidate cell needs to be before it is reported to the serving cell; a threshold indicating how much higher or lower the reference signal of the serving cell needs to be before a mobility event may be triggered; a filter coefficient applied to the measurement before evaluation triggers are considered; a time to trigger meaning the time window within which the triggering condition needs to be continuously met in order to trigger the reporting event in the UE.”).
OAM network nodes can perform MRO operations (see Dudda Fig. 7, [0093]: “FIG. 7 schematically illustrates an exemplary network architecture in which concepts of the invention may be applied. The exemplary network architecture comprises a management system. The node elements (NE), also referred to as eNodeB, are managed by a domain manager (DM), also referred to as an operation and support system (OSS). A DM may further be managed by a network manager (NM). Two NEs are interfaced by an X2, whereas the interface between two DMs is referred to as Itf-P2P. The management system may configure the network elements, as well as receive observations associated to features in the network elements. For example, DM observes and configures NEs, while NM observes and configures DM, as well as NE via DM. Any function that automatically optimizes mobility parameters can in principle be execute in the NE, DM, or the NMS (Network Management System)” | [0092]: “Optimization, MRO, function(s). In FIG. 6 a typical MRO scenario is illustrated. A UE 601 is in the beginning connected to a Source eNB 602 and undergoes a successful handover to a Failure eNB 603. The connection to the Failure eNB 603 fails and the UE 601 reestablishes in a Reestablishment eNB 604. Then, the UE 601 may send the RLF report 605 to the Reestablishment eNB 604, which forwards it with further information within the RLF indication 606 to the Failure eNB 603. MRO mechanisms may be applied in this eNB 603. In case the connection of the UE 601 had failed quickly after the handover to the Failure eNB 603, it is further beneficial to inform the Source eNB 602 about it with the Handover report 607 which includes also the RLF report. In this case also the Source eNB 602 will apply MRO mechanisms. In some parts of the disclosure, both Source eNB 602 and Failure eNB 603 are denoted as “MRO-applying network entities”. This does not exclude that those MRO mechanism may be partly applied in further network nodes (e.g. OAM nodes, see below), which may influence parameter settings in Source eNBs and Failure eNB. Such a MRO mechanism may be implemented in any node of a cellular network. One may also refer to the network elements by network node.”).
Dudda disclosed identifying a too late handover (see Dudda [0069]: “Essentially, MRO tries to identify the following three situations, and based on the statistical occurrence of these, tries to adjust the HO parameters.”; [0070]: “Too Late HO: a UE is handed over late to the target cell, so that the link to the source cell breaks before completing the handover.”).
The root cause determination makes use of the received RLF reports and may be performed by OAM nodes and transmitted to network nodes (see Fig. 8, [0100]: “…In a step S801, a UE experiences a radio link failure, RLF. In a step S802, a network node receives an RLF report. The RLF report is typically send from the UE to the network node. The RLF report shall comprise combined handover and RLF information of the UE. An example of such combined information is the T312 expiry in e.g. an RLF report. In a step S803, the network node considers the RLF report and deduces UE's handover and RLM configuration to analyze RLF root cause in MRO mechanism to optimize mobility robustness by adapting handover and RLM parameters in affected cells.”, [0107]: “The inclusion of this cause value allows determining if the failure occurred after a measurement report was sent by the UE (since the entry conditions of T312 are both measurement report transmission as well as radio link failure state, expiry of T312 is therefore only possible if both conditions hold). This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE. Hence, from this information it can be deducted that the UE might have moved out of serving cell coverage shortly after reporting a measurement report. In case enough instances of failures including such information are recorded, the MRO algorithm (or any other algorithm using such information, e.g. in OAM, Operation Administration and Maintenance) may therefore infer that a possible adjustment to prevent such failure could be to anticipate signaling of the measurement report, i.e. to anticipate the entering condition for the mobility event(s) possibly triggering measurement reports. The latter can be achieved for example by increasing the threshold on the serving cell signal; or decreasing threshold on target cell signal; or modifying the hysteresis values in a way to anticipate the event reporting; or reducing the time to trigger for starting the handover procedures (i.e. triggering HO command signaling; or parts or all of the above.” | [0126]: “Subsequently an interaction with the OAM system is discussed. In another embodiment the enhanced information on failure events, for example the enhanced RLF reports or part of the information included in it, collected by eNBs can be forwarded to the OAM system and analyzed therein. On the basis of mobility failure statistics signaled by the eNB to the OAM, the OAM system can take decisions on how to modify mobility parameters similar to those described in embodiments above. The OAM system can then signal to the eNBs in need of modification of mobility parameters, or in general of optimized configuration, new parameters calculated on the bases of the reported statistics. For example, the OAM may signal new values of the Cell Individual Offsets relative to one or more neighbor cell relation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 42, Catovic disclosed an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (see Catovic Fig. 19, [0156]: “FIG. 19 illustrates a wireless device 1910 (e.g., an access point) and a wireless device 1950 (e.g., an access terminal) of a sample MIMO system 1900. At the device 1910, traffic data for a number of data streams is provided from a data source 1912 to a transmit (TX) data processor 1914. Each data stream may then be transmitted over a respective transmit antenna.”); and
at least one memory including computer program code (see Catovic Fig. 19, [0157]: an access point includes “…A data memory 1932 may store program code, data, and other information used by the processor 1930 or other components of the device 1910…”; [0162]: access terminal includes “…A data memory 1972 may store program code, data, and other information used by the processor 1970 or other components of the device 1950.”);
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive an initiation of a re-establishment procedure to become connected to at least one target radio node, to provide access to a target cell of the at least one target radio node, in response to a radio link failure of a user equipment with a source radio node (see Catovic Fig. 2, [0047]: “In FIG. 2, an access terminal 202 is in the vicinity of an access point 204 and an access point 206. Initially, the access terminal 202 is connected to the access point 204 (e.g., a cell of the access point 204). Here, RLF may occur as a result of inadequate configuration of handover triggering parameters at the access point 204 (e.g., as discussed above). In the event the signal quality provided by the access point 206 is sufficient to maintain a call for the access terminal 202, the access terminal 202 may re-establish the connection at the access point 206 (e.g., at a cell of the access point 206).” | [0049]: “Referring initially to the first type of too late handover, if the access terminal 202 re-establishes the connection at the access point 206 after RLF at the access point 204, the access point 206 reports this RLF event to the access point 204 via an RLF report message (as represented by the dashed line in FIG. 2). In other words, if the access terminal 202 re-establishes (or attempts to re-establish) the radio link at the access point 206 after RLF at the access point 204, the access point 206 reports this RLF event to the access point 204. Here, the access point 206 may use an identifier (e.g., physical cell identifier, PCI) provided by the access terminal during connection re-establishment to identify the previous serving cell/access point (or possible candidates in the case of identifier confusion) for the access terminal. The access point 204 may then detect a too late handover based on this RLF report message. For example, the access point 204 may match the correct context (based on an access terminal identifier included in the RLF report message), and analyze the possible root cause of the RLF which preceded the re-establishment request.” | Fig. 12, [0125]: “As represented by block 1206, the cell may identify a too late handover or a too early handover (e.g., a too late or too early handover signature) based on the determined indications of signal quality. For example, a signature of a likelihood of too late handovers may be identified based on whether Qs is low and/or based on whether the difference (Ds-n) between the quality indications when the measurement report is sent by the access terminal is large as compared to the offset (e.g., the difference exceeds a defined offset by a defined amount). This condition is depicted in FIG. 13A. Conversely, a signature of a likelihood of too early handovers may be identified based on whether Qs is not low and/or based on whether the difference (Ds-n) between the quality indications when the measurement report is sent is small as compared to the offset (e.g., the difference exceeds a defined offset by less than a defined amount). This condition is depicted in FIG. 13B.”);
receive a radio link failure report from the user equipment (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “…As discussed herein, in conjunction with the re-establishment of the connection, the second cell (e.g., second access point) receives a message from the access terminal that indicates that the access terminal experienced RLF at the first cell (e.g., a first access point). Here, the message identifies the cell (and/or access point) at which the RLF occurred.”), the radio link failure report comprising: at least one filter measurement of a signal received with the user equipment from the source radio node, and/or at least one filter measurement of a signal received with the user equipment from the at least one target radio node (see Dudda combination below); and
transmit to the source radio node an indication of a radio link failure experienced with a user equipment (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “…As discussed herein, in conjunction with the re-establishment of the connection, the second cell (e.g., second access point) receives a message from the access terminal that indicates that the access terminal experienced RLF at the first cell (e.g., a first access point). Here, the message identifies the cell (and/or access point) at which the RLF occurred.”), wherein the radio link failure indication comprises information within the radio link failure report;
wherein the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the source radio node, and/or the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the at least one target radio node is configured to be used with the source radio node for a root-cause analysis (see Catovic [0049]: “the access point 204 may match the correct context (based on an access terminal identifier included in the RLF report message), and analyze the possible root cause of the RLF which preceded the re-establishment request.”) related to at least one unfixable too-late handover or other type of problematic handover (see Catovic [0049]: the access point 204 may detect a too late handover based on the RLF report message).
Catovic did not explicitly disclose “the radio link failure report comprising: at least one filter measurement of a signal received with the user equipment from the source radio node, and/or at least one filter measurement of a signal received with the user equipment from the at least one target radio node”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the type of measurements included in an RLF report is a matter of implementation choice and that the included measurements are filtered from all of the measurements that were taken, e.g., based on a threshold.
However in a related art, Dudda disclosed that the RLF report comprises source and target cell measurements (see Dudda [0077]: “Three main messages, namely RLF report included in RRC: UEInformationResponse message (between the UE and eNBs)…are used by MRO to communicate/gather information regarding Too Early Handover, Too Late Handover and Handover to the wrong cell. See e.g. 3GPP TS 36.300 V12.0.0, TS 36.331 V12.0.0 and TS 36.423 V12.0.0.” | [0078]: “…The eNB to which the UE is reconnecting to, either through a successful RRC re-establishment or via RRCConnectionSetup after IDLE mode, can ask for more detailed information about the failure after the connection is completed. This is done via the UE Information Request procedure, where the eNB can ask for RLF report…” | [0079]: “The UE 402 responds by sending a UEInformationResponse message 404 with a detailed RLF report which can include information such as (see 3GPP TS 36.331 V12.0.0):”; [0080]: “Measurement result of the last served cell before RLF; Measurement result of the neighbor cells performed before RLF; Location info, which can include last co-ordinates as well as velocity of the UE when RLF was detected; E-CGI (and if that is not available Physical Cell ID (PCI)) of the cell where RLF occurred; E-CGI of the cell that the re-establishment attempt was made at; if the RLF occurred after the reception of a HO command”).
Dudda also disclosed that a filter is applied to the measurements (see Dudda [0075]: “A threshold indicating how much higher or lower the reference signal of a certain candidate cell needs to be before it is reported to the serving cell; a threshold indicating how much higher or lower the reference signal of the serving cell needs to be before a mobility event may be triggered; a filter coefficient applied to the measurement before evaluation triggers are considered; a time to trigger meaning the time window within which the triggering condition needs to be continuously met in order to trigger the reporting event in the UE.”).
OAM network nodes can perform MRO operations (see Dudda Fig. 7, [0093]: “FIG. 7 schematically illustrates an exemplary network architecture in which concepts of the invention may be applied. The exemplary network architecture comprises a management system. The node elements (NE), also referred to as eNodeB, are managed by a domain manager (DM), also referred to as an operation and support system (OSS). A DM may further be managed by a network manager (NM). Two NEs are interfaced by an X2, whereas the interface between two DMs is referred to as Itf-P2P. The management system may configure the network elements, as well as receive observations associated to features in the network elements. For example, DM observes and configures NEs, while NM observes and configures DM, as well as NE via DM. Any function that automatically optimizes mobility parameters can in principle be execute in the NE, DM, or the NMS (Network Management System)” | [0092]: “Optimization, MRO, function(s). In FIG. 6 a typical MRO scenario is illustrated. A UE 601 is in the beginning connected to a Source eNB 602 and undergoes a successful handover to a Failure eNB 603. The connection to the Failure eNB 603 fails and the UE 601 reestablishes in a Reestablishment eNB 604. Then, the UE 601 may send the RLF report 605 to the Reestablishment eNB 604, which forwards it with further information within the RLF indication 606 to the Failure eNB 603. MRO mechanisms may be applied in this eNB 603. In case the connection of the UE 601 had failed quickly after the handover to the Failure eNB 603, it is further beneficial to inform the Source eNB 602 about it with the Handover report 607 which includes also the RLF report. In this case also the Source eNB 602 will apply MRO mechanisms. In some parts of the disclosure, both Source eNB 602 and Failure eNB 603 are denoted as “MRO-applying network entities”. This does not exclude that those MRO mechanism may be partly applied in further network nodes (e.g. OAM nodes, see below), which may influence parameter settings in Source eNBs and Failure eNB. Such a MRO mechanism may be implemented in any node of a cellular network. One may also refer to the network elements by network node.”).
The root cause determination makes use of the received RLF reports and may be performed by OAM nodes (see Dudda Fig. 8, [0100]: “…In a step S801, a UE experiences a radio link failure, RLF. In a step S802, a network node receives an RLF report. The RLF report is typically send from the UE to the network node. The RLF report shall comprise combined handover and RLF information of the UE. An example of such combined information is the T312 expiry in e.g. an RLF report. In a step S803, the network node considers the RLF report and deduces UE's handover and RLM configuration to analyze RLF root cause in MRO mechanism to optimize mobility robustness by adapting handover and RLM parameters in affected cells.”, [0107]: “The inclusion of this cause value allows determining if the failure occurred after a measurement report was sent by the UE (since the entry conditions of T312 are both measurement report transmission as well as radio link failure state, expiry of T312 is therefore only possible if both conditions hold). This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE. Hence, from this information it can be deducted that the UE might have moved out of serving cell coverage shortly after reporting a measurement report. In case enough instances of failures including such information are recorded, the MRO algorithm (or any other algorithm using such information, e.g. in OAM, Operation Administration and Maintenance) may therefore infer that a possible adjustment to prevent such failure could be to anticipate signaling of the measurement report, i.e. to anticipate the entering condition for the mobility event(s) possibly triggering measurement reports. The latter can be achieved for example by increasing the threshold on the serving cell signal; or decreasing threshold on target cell signal; or modifying the hysteresis values in a way to anticipate the event reporting; or reducing the time to trigger for starting the handover procedures (i.e. triggering HO command signaling; or parts or all of the above.” | [0126]: “Subsequently an interaction with the OAM system is discussed. In another embodiment the enhanced information on failure events, for example the enhanced RLF reports or part of the information included in it, collected by eNBs can be forwarded to the OAM system and analyzed therein. On the basis of mobility failure statistics signaled by the eNB to the OAM, the OAM system can take decisions on how to modify mobility parameters similar to those described in embodiments above. The OAM system can then signal to the eNBs in need of modification of mobility parameters, or in general of optimized configuration, new parameters calculated on the bases of the reported statistics. For example, the OAM may signal new values of the Cell Individual Offsets relative to one or more neighbor cell relation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 52, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 40, wherein the at least one unfixable too-late handover is determined (see Catovic [0049]: the access point 204 may detect a too late handover based on the RLF report message)
where a difference between the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the source radio node and the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the at least one target radio node exceeds a defined amount of an offset configuration (see Dudda [0107]: “…This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE. Hence, from this information it can be deducted that the UE might have moved out of serving cell coverage shortly after reporting a measurement report. In case enough instances of failures including such information are recorded, the MRO algorithm (or any other algorithm using such information, e.g. in OAM, Operation Administration and Maintenance) may therefore infer that a possible adjustment to prevent such failure could be to anticipate signaling of the measurement report, i.e. to anticipate the entering condition for the mobility event(s) possibly triggering measurement reports. The latter can be achieved for example by increasing the threshold on the serving cell signal; or decreasing threshold on target cell signal; or modifying the hysteresis values in a way to anticipate the event reporting; or reducing the time to trigger for starting the handover procedures (i.e. triggering HO command signaling; or parts or all of the above.”), and
where the user equipment either fails to transmit a measurement report to the source radio node, or fails to receive a handover command from the source radio node (see Dudda [0107]: “The inclusion of this cause value allows determining if the failure occurred after a measurement report was sent by the UE...This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 53, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 40, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: determine a metric that comprises comparing strength or quality of a signal received from the source radio node with a strength or quality of a signal received from the at least one target radio node (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “As represented by block 506, the access terminal re-establishes the connection at the second cell. Here, the access terminal selects the access point of the second cell for re-establishing the connection after the RLF (e.g., based on received signal strengths of access points detected by the access terminal). As discussed herein, in conjunction with the re-establishment of the connection, the second cell (e.g., second access point) receives a message from the access terminal that indicates that the access terminal experienced RLF at the first cell (e.g., a first access point). Here, the message identifies the cell (and/or access point) at which the RLF occurred.” | Fig. 12, [0123]: “As represented by blocks 1202 and 1204 of FIG. 12, a cell (an access point) may determine (e.g., monitor) indications of signal quality (e.g., received signal strengths) of itself and of other surrounding cells as reported by any access terminals whose measurement reports were received by the cell. FIGS. 13A and 13B depict sample graphs of reported quality indications Qn and Qs for a serving cell (line Mn) and a target cell (line Ms), respectively. These quality indications may correspond to, for example, reference signal received quality (RSRQ), reference signal received power (RSRP), or some other suitable quality metric.”).
Regarding claim 54, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 40, wherein the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the source radio node, and/or at least one filter measurement of the signal received from at least one target radio node (examiner notes that “from at least one target radio node” in claim 54 may or may not be the same “at least one target radio node” described in parent claim 40) comprises: at least one layer 1 measurement and/or at least one layer 3 measurement (see Catovic Fig. 6, [0091]: “As represented by block 606, the first cell detects the RLF of the access terminal. For example, the first cell may detect the RLF while trying to transmit the handover command and conclude that this is a case of a too late handover from the first cell to the second cell. As discussed herein, in some cases detection of RLF may involve detecting the loss of lower layer synchronization with an access terminal during an ongoing procedure of handing-over the access terminal from a first cell (or access point) to a second cell (or access point). Thus, in some aspects, the detection of block 606 may comprise detecting RLF due to too late handover, wherein the detection may comprise determining at a first cell (or access point) that RLF occurred during handover of the access terminal from the first cell to a second cell (or access point).” | Fig. 12, [0123]: “As represented by blocks 1202 and 1204 of FIG. 12, a cell (an access point) may determine (e.g., monitor) indications of signal quality (e.g., received signal strengths) of itself and of other surrounding cells as reported by any access terminals whose measurement reports were received by the cell. FIGS. 13A and 13B depict sample graphs of reported quality indications Qn and Qs for a serving cell (line Mn) and a target cell (line Ms), respectively. These quality indications may correspond to, for example, reference signal received quality (RSRQ), reference signal received power (RSRP), or some other suitable quality metric.”).
Regarding claim 55, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 40, wherein determining the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the at least one target radio node comprises recording a number of strongest measurements received from the at least one target radio node among a set of measurements (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “As represented by block 506, the access terminal re-establishes the connection at the second cell. Here, the access terminal selects the access point of the second cell for re-establishing the connection after the RLF (e.g., based on received signal strengths of access points detected by the access terminal). As discussed herein, in conjunction with the re-establishment of the connection, the second cell (e.g., second access point) receives a message from the access terminal that indicates that the access terminal experienced RLF at the first cell (e.g., a first access point). Here, the message identifies the cell (and/or access point) at which the RLF occurred.” | Fig. 12, [0123]: “As represented by blocks 1202 and 1204 of FIG. 12, a cell (an access point) may determine (e.g., monitor) indications of signal quality (e.g., received signal strengths) of itself and of other surrounding cells as reported by any access terminals whose measurement reports were received by the cell. FIGS. 13A and 13B depict sample graphs of reported quality indications Qn and Qs for a serving cell (line Mn) and a target cell (line Ms), respectively. These quality indications may correspond to, for example, reference signal received quality (RSRQ), reference signal received power (RSRP), or some other suitable quality metric.”).
Regarding claim 56, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 40, wherein determining the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the at least one target radio node comprises recording measurements from a subset (Examiner notes that “a subset of the at least one target radio node” may be interpreted as the same target radio since parent claim 40’s “at least one target radio node” does not require a plurality of target radio nodes, i.e. a subset of a group of one is also one) of the at least one target radio node (see Catovic Fig. 12, [0123]: “As represented by blocks 1202 and 1204 of FIG. 12, a cell (an access point) may determine (e.g., monitor) indications of signal quality (e.g., received signal strengths) of itself and of other surrounding cells as reported by any access terminals whose measurement reports were received by the cell. FIGS. 13A and 13B depict sample graphs of reported quality indications Qn and Qs for a serving cell (line Mn) and a target cell (line Ms), respectively. These quality indications may correspond to, for example, reference signal received quality (RSRQ), reference signal received power (RSRP), or some other suitable quality metric.”).
Regarding claim 57, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 40, wherein determining the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the source radio node, and/or at least one filter measurement of the signal received from at least one target radio node (examiner notes that “from at least one target radio node” in claim 57 may or may not be the same “at least one target radio node” described in parent claim 40) begins upon starting of a timer (see Dudda [0166]: “FIG. 14 shows a definition of a T312 timer. The timer T312 may be started upon triggering a measurement report for a measurement identity for which T312 has been configured, while T310 is running. The timer T312 may be stopped upon receiving N311 consecutive in-sync indications from lower layers, upon triggering the handover procedure, upon initiating the connection re-establishment procedure, and upon the expiry of T310. At expiry of the Timer T312, it is foreseen to go to RRC_IDLE, if security is not activated, else it is foreseen to initiate the connection re-establishment procedure.” | [0154]: “In an optional step S1105, the user equipment sends information on a radio link monitoring, RLM, configuration. This information may be send directly or indirectly to the node. As stated above, the RLM configuration may comprise information on at least one of a radio link failure timer such as a duration or setting of the radio link failure timer (e.g. timer T310) and a handover timer such as a duration or setting of a handover timer (e.g. timer T312). Information on RLM configuration is also an example of information related to the mobility of the user equipment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 58, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 57, wherein determining the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from a source radio node (examiner notes that “from a source radio node” in claim 58 may or may not be the same “source radio node” described in parent claims 40 and 57], and/or at least one filter measurement of the signal received from at least one target radio node [examiner notes that “from at least one target radio node” in claim 58 may or may not be the same “at least one target radio node” described in parent claims 40 and 57) occurs for a configured period of time following starting of the timer (see Dudda [0153]: “As stated above, the information related to the mobility of the user equipment comprises information of at least one of: a handover configuration; a handover timer such as a setting of the timer T312; a radio link failure timer such as a setting of the timer T310; whether the user equipment has send a measurement report, e.g. the measurement report send in a handover procedure; whether the network has received a measurement report from the user equipment; a failure cause, e.g. a reason that caused the failure or the expiry of the T312 timer; expiry of a handover timer e.g. timer T312; expiry of a radio link failure timer e.g. timer T310; whether a handover timer has expired; a list of cells fulfilling triggering conditions of a measurement report; a measurement event e.g. a measurement ID or the measurement event that has triggered a handover timer; a time period since a handover timer is triggered; a time period between sending a measurement report and occurrence of a radio link failure; a time period since a handover timer is running; and a time period since a link failure timer is running.”; [0154]: “In an optional step S1105, the user equipment sends information on a radio link monitoring, RLM, configuration. This information may be send directly or indirectly to the node. As stated above, the RLM configuration may comprise information on at least one of a radio link failure timer such as a duration or setting of the radio link failure timer (e.g. timer T310) and a handover timer such as a duration or setting of a handover timer (e.g. timer T312). Information on RLM configuration is also an example of information related to the mobility of the user equipment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 59, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 57, wherein determining the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the source radio node, and/or at least one filter measurement of the signal received from at least one target radio node [examiner notes that “from at least one target radio node” in claim 59 may or may not be the same “at least one target radio node” described in parent claims 40 and 57] comprises: determining a power difference between the source radio node and a set of the at least one target radio node (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “As represented by block 506, the access terminal re-establishes the connection at the second cell. Here, the access terminal selects the access point of the second cell for re-establishing the connection after the RLF (e.g., based on received signal strengths of access points detected by the access terminal)…” | Fig. 12, [0123]: “As represented by blocks 1202 and 1204 of FIG. 12, a cell (an access point) may determine (e.g., monitor) indications of signal quality (e.g., received signal strengths) of itself and of other surrounding cells as reported by any access terminals whose measurement reports were received by the cell. FIGS. 13A and 13B depict sample graphs of reported quality indications Qn and Qs for a serving cell (line Mn) and a target cell (line Ms), respectively. These quality indications may correspond to, for example, reference signal received quality (RSRQ), reference signal received power (RSRP), or some other suitable quality metric.”).
Regarding claim 60, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 59, wherein the set (examiner notes that “the set” is not described in any of the parent claims 40, 57, and 59) of the at least one target radio node (Examiner also notes that a set of the at least one target radio node may be a set of one) comprises a number of neighboring radio nodes with a strongest power measurement among a set of measurements (see Catovic Fig. 5, [0083]: “As represented by block 506, the access terminal re-establishes the connection at the second cell. Here, the access terminal selects the access point of the second cell for re-establishing the connection after the RLF (e.g., based on received signal strengths of access points detected by the access terminal)…” | Fig. 12, [0123]: “As represented by blocks 1202 and 1204 of FIG. 12, a cell (an access point) may determine (e.g., monitor) indications of signal quality (e.g., received signal strengths) of itself and of other surrounding cells as reported by any access terminals whose measurement reports were received by the cell. FIGS. 13A and 13B depict sample graphs of reported quality indications Qn and Qs for a serving cell (line Mn) and a target cell (line Ms), respectively. These quality indications may correspond to, for example, reference signal received quality (RSRQ), reference signal received power (RSRP), or some other suitable quality metric.”).
Regarding claim 61, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 40, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: access a cell of the source radio node prior to initiating the re-establishment procedure to become connected to the at least one target radio node (see Catovic Fig. 7, [0098]: “As represented by block 704, the access terminal experiences RLF at the second cell while attempting to connect to the second cell. As discussed herein, the RLF may have occurred as a result of inadequate configuration of handover triggering parameters at the first cell (e.g., first access point) that caused the handover from the first cell (e.g., first access point) to the second cell (e.g., second access point) to be triggered too early for successful handover.”; [0099]: “As represented by block 706, the access terminal re-establishes the connection at the first cell. As discussed herein, in conjunction with the re-establishment of the connection, the first cell receives a message from the access terminal that indicates that the access terminal experienced RLF at the second cell”).
Regarding claim 62, the claim contains the limitations, substantially as claimed, as described in claim 52 above. Catovic-Dudda disclosed, as recited in claim 62: The apparatus of claim 41, wherein the at least one unfixable too-late handover is determined where a difference between the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the source radio node and the at least one filter measurement of the signal received from the at least one target radio node exceeds a defined amount of an offset configuration (see Dudda [0107]: “…This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE. Hence, from this information it can be deducted that the UE might have moved out of serving cell coverage shortly after reporting a measurement report. In case enough instances of failures including such information are recorded, the MRO algorithm (or any other algorithm using such information, e.g. in OAM, Operation Administration and Maintenance) may therefore infer that a possible adjustment to prevent such failure could be to anticipate signaling of the measurement report, i.e. to anticipate the entering condition for the mobility event(s) possibly triggering measurement reports. The latter can be achieved for example by increasing the threshold on the serving cell signal; or decreasing threshold on target cell signal; or modifying the hysteresis values in a way to anticipate the event reporting; or reducing the time to trigger for starting the handover procedures (i.e. triggering HO command signaling; or parts or all of the above.”), and where the user equipment either fails to transmit a measurement report to the source radio node, or fails to receive a handover command from the source radio node (see Dudda [0107]: “The inclusion of this cause value allows determining if the failure occurred after a measurement report was sent by the UE...This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 63, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 41, wherein the network element is an operation, administration and maintenance node (see Dudda [0126]: “Subsequently an interaction with the OAM system is discussed. In another embodiment the enhanced information on failure events, for example the enhanced RLF reports or part of the information included in it, collected by eNBs can be forwarded to the OAM system and analyzed therein. On the basis of mobility failure statistics signaled by the eNB to the OAM, the OAM system can take decisions on how to modify mobility parameters similar to those described in embodiments above. The OAM system can then signal to the eNBs in need of modification of mobility parameters, or in general of optimized configuration, new parameters calculated on the bases of the reported statistics. For example, the OAM may signal new values of the Cell Individual Offsets relative to one or more neighbor cell relation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 64, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 41, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: discriminate the at least one unfixable too-late handover from at least one other type of too-late handover (see Catovic [0041]: “…For example, handover failures may occur as a result of too early handover triggering, too late handover triggering, handovers not being triggered, and handovers to the wrong cell. Here, handovers that are not triggered due to RLF occurring prior to handover triggering may be considered as a subset of too late handover triggering….” | Fig. 6, [0021]: “FIG. 6 is a flowchart of several sample aspects of operations that may be performed to detect a second type of too late handover failure.”).
Regarding claim 65, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 41, wherein a too-late handover is where an offset configuration exceeds a defined amount to fix where the user equipment either fails to transmit a measurement report to the source radio node, or fails to receive a handover command from the source radio node (see Dudda [0076]: “For example, a higher ‘too early handover’ ratio than desired can be counter-acted by increasing the threshold of candidate target cell, e.g. delaying the triggering of an A3 event. Another example could be the resolving of a higher ‘handover to wrong cell’ ratio than desired by increasing the threshold towards the first, unwanted, target cell.” | [0107]: “The inclusion of this cause value allows determining if the failure occurred after a measurement report was sent by the UE...This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 66, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 64, wherein the result of the root cause analysis comprises the at least one other type of too-late handover, and does not comprise the at least one unfixable too-late handover (Examiner notes that the root cause analysis is included and specifies the root cause and does not specify the non-applicable causes | see Dudda [0076]: “For example, a higher ‘too early handover’ ratio than desired can be counter-acted by increasing the threshold of candidate target cell, e.g. delaying the triggering of an A3 event. Another example could be the resolving of a higher ‘handover to wrong cell’ ratio than desired by increasing the threshold towards the first, unwanted, target cell.” | [0172]: “In the current RLF Report (e.g. according to TS 36.331 V12.0.0) signalled by the UE as part of the MRO solution, a number of RLF cause values are already included. The reason for inclusion of such causes is to allow the RAN to have a better understanding of the root cause of failure and to be able to apply the right adjustments depending on the declared cause. The RLF cause values currently reportable in the RLF Report are listed in FIG. 9C (see TS36.331 V12.0.0).” | [0107]: “The inclusion of this cause value allows determining if the failure occurred after a measurement report was sent by the UE (since the entry conditions of T312 are both measurement report transmission as well as radio link failure state, expiry of T312 is therefore only possible if both conditions hold). This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE. Hence, from this information it can be deducted that the UE might have moved out of serving cell coverage shortly after reporting a measurement report. In case enough instances of failures including such information are recorded, the MRO algorithm (or any other algorithm using such information, e.g. in OAM, Operation Administration and Maintenance) may therefore infer that a possible adjustment to prevent such failure could be to anticipate signaling of the measurement report…” | [0126]: “Subsequently an interaction with the OAM system is discussed. In another embodiment the enhanced information on failure events, for example the enhanced RLF reports or part of the information included in it, collected by eNBs can be forwarded to the OAM system and analyzed therein. On the basis of mobility failure statistics signaled by the eNB to the OAM, the OAM system can take decisions on how to modify mobility parameters similar to those described in embodiments above. The OAM system can then signal to the eNBs in need of modification of mobility parameters, or in general of optimized configuration, new parameters calculated on the bases of the reported statistics. For example, the OAM may signal new values of the Cell Individual Offsets relative to one or more neighbor cell relation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 67, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 64, wherein the result of the root cause analysis is transmitted as a separate root cause information element comprising the at least one unfixable too-late handover (see Dudda [0076]: “For example, a higher ‘too early handover’ ratio than desired can be counter-acted by increasing the threshold of candidate target cell, e.g. delaying the triggering of an A3 event. Another example could be the resolving of a higher ‘handover to wrong cell’ ratio than desired by increasing the threshold towards the first, unwanted, target cell.” | [0172]: “In the current RLF Report (e.g. according to TS 36.331 V12.0.0) signalled by the UE as part of the MRO solution, a number of RLF cause values are already included. The reason for inclusion of such causes is to allow the RAN to have a better understanding of the root cause of failure and to be able to apply the right adjustments depending on the declared cause. The RLF cause values currently reportable in the RLF Report are listed in FIG. 9C (see TS36.331 V12.0.0).” | [0107]: “The inclusion of this cause value allows determining if the failure occurred after a measurement report was sent by the UE (since the entry conditions of T312 are both measurement report transmission as well as radio link failure state, expiry of T312 is therefore only possible if both conditions hold). This information is very important because it indicates to the failure eNB that conditions to trigger the handover were met, but that an RLF occurred before a HO Command could be received by the UE. Hence, from this information it can be deducted that the UE might have moved out of serving cell coverage shortly after reporting a measurement report. In case enough instances of failures including such information are recorded, the MRO algorithm (or any other algorithm using such information, e.g. in OAM, Operation Administration and Maintenance) may therefore infer that a possible adjustment to prevent such failure could be to anticipate signaling of the measurement report, i.e. to anticipate the entering condition for the mobility event(s) possibly triggering measurement reports. The latter can be achieved for example by increasing the threshold on the serving cell signal; or decreasing threshold on target cell signal; or modifying the hysteresis values in a way to anticipate the event reporting; or reducing the time to trigger for starting the handover procedures (i.e. triggering HO command signaling; or parts or all of the above.” | [0126]: “Subsequently an interaction with the OAM system is discussed. In another embodiment the enhanced information on failure events, for example the enhanced RLF reports or part of the information included in it, collected by eNBs can be forwarded to the OAM system and analyzed therein. On the basis of mobility failure statistics signaled by the eNB to the OAM, the OAM system can take decisions on how to modify mobility parameters similar to those described in embodiments above. The OAM system can then signal to the eNBs in need of modification of mobility parameters, or in general of optimized configuration, new parameters calculated on the bases of the reported statistics. For example, the OAM may signal new values of the Cell Individual Offsets relative to one or more neighbor cell relation.”).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Regarding claim 68, Catovic-Dudda disclosed the apparatus of claim 41, wherein the root cause analysis is configured to be used with the network element to remedy (see Dudda [0076]: “For example, a higher ‘too early handover’ ratio than desired can be counter-acted by increasing the threshold of candidate target cell, e.g. delaying the triggering of an A3 event. Another example could be the resolving of a higher ‘handover to wrong cell’ ratio than desired by increasing the threshold towards the first, unwanted, target cell.” | [0172]: “In the current RLF Report (e.g. according to TS 36.331 V12.0.0) signalled by the UE as part of the MRO solution, a number of RLF cause values are already included. The reason for inclusion of such causes is to allow the RAN to have a better understanding of the root cause of failure and to be able to apply the right adjustments depending on the declared cause. The RLF cause values currently reportable in the RLF Report are listed in FIG. 9C (see TS36.331 V12.0.0).”) the at least one unfixable too-late handover or another type of the root cause the user equipment experienced the radio link failure (see Catovic [0049]: the access point 204 may detect a too late handover based on the RLF report message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Catovic and Dudda to clarify the types of measurements included in RLF reports and how the information included in the RLF reports is used. Including Dudda’s teachings would improve the robustness of handovers (see Dudda [0017]) by combining failure information of handover procedures and RLF procedure and ensure accurate adoption of handover parameters and optimize mobility robustness (see Dudda [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela Widhalm de Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)272-1035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6am-2:30pm 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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at (571)272-3889. 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.
/ANGELA WIDHALM DE RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2443