DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 27 July 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1 and 21 are amended.
Claim 22 is canceled.
Claims 1-21 and 23 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1 and 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (to Claims 1 and 21).
Applicant's arguments filed 27 July 2026 regarding Claim 23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states (refer to pages 13-14 of the response):
“However, claim 23 does not merely recite one logical module detecting a radio condition and another logical module performing a later RLF operation. Rather, claim 23 recites a UE having a communication processor and an application processor, where the communication processor detects the adverse radio link condition and the application processor receives the radio link degradation indication in response to that detection. Thus, the claim recites a particular processor relationship. The Office's rejection does not identify any disclosure in Turakhia or Damnjanovic of an application processor, nor does the rejection identify where either reference discloses an application processor receiving the claimed radio link degradation indication.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office first notes that “communications processor” and “application processor” are not further limited in the claim language as to a particular structure or component-type so as to require a specific definition of either element. Further, the claim language lacks any physical connectivity or inter-relationship so as to require a specific arrangement of the processors relative to one another. Rather, the two processors are claimed as performing two separate actions. Further, while the application processor receives the radio link degradation indication in response to the communication processor detecting the adverse radio link condition, the claim language does not indicate that the application processor receives the indication from the communication processor. Accordingly, the Office submits that Turakhia’s disclose of two separate comments (the radio link condition module and RLF procedure module) performing the same actions claimed as being performed by the communication processor and application processor read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as currently drafted. On pages 15-16 of the response, Applicant states that “(t)he Office’s stated reason to combine likewise does not supply the missing claim features” and further states “(t)he articulated rational is directed to handover behavior, not to the claimed communication-processor/application-processor architecture.” In response to applicant's argument that the stated reason to combine is directed to handover behavior, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In response to Applicant’s statement that “the resulting combination would still not include the processor arrangement recited in claim 23,” the Office reiterates the previous point that Claim 23 recites two processors that are not claimed as having any connectivity to one another (e.g., logical, physical or otherwise), while the functions performed by the respective processors are only related in that the application processor performs a function in “in response to” (without any direct or indirect intervening steps claimed) a step previously performed by the communication processor. Accordingly, the Office submits that the combination of Turakhia and Damnjanovic renders obvious the features of Claim 23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 15 September 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turakhia (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0112924) in view of Damnjanovic (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0046573) and Claeson et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220086699), hereinafter Claeson.
Regarding Claim 21, Turakhia discloses a user equipment device (Figure 8, user equipment 115-d), comprising:
one or more radio frequency (RF) modems configured to wirelessly communicate with at least one network (Figure 8 – UE 115-d comprises transceiver 835 and antennas 840 to communicate with base stations 105; paragraph 0098 – transceiver 835 comprises a modem);
one or more processors coupled to the one or more RF modems (Figure 8 – processor 805 coupled via bus 845 to transceiver 835); and
at least one memory storing executable instructions (Figure 8 – memory 815 storing code 820), the executable instructions configured to manipulate at least one of the one or more processors or the one or more RF modems to:
monitor a plurality of layers of a communication stack of the UE device (Figure 6 at 610 and paragraph 0086 – UE 115-c comprises a radio link condition module that can detect radio link condition according to RLC layer metrics as well as PHY layer or MAC layer metrics);
responsive to monitoring the plurality of layers, detect at least one adverse radio link condition associated with the active voice call (paragraph 0086 – the radio link condition module may detect a condition indicative of an RLF based on metrics related to RLC, PHY, or MAC); and
provide a radio link degradation (RLD) indication to a second component of the UE device in response to detecting the at least one adverse radio link condition (Figure 6 and paragraphs 0087-0089 – the RLF procedure module (620, separate from radio link condition module 610) may initiate an RLF procedure based on detecting the radio link condition).
However, while Turakhia discloses detecting the radio link condition based on a traffic type indication, where the traffic type may be Voice over LTE (VoLTE) (refer to paragraph 0086), Turakhia does not disclose monitoring during an active voice call. In an analogous art, Damnjanovic discloses this. Specifically, Damnjanovic discloses a UE monitoring channel quality and processing RLF indications during a communication session (i.e., a voice or data transfer) (refer to paragraphs 0047-0048). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Turakhia and Damnjanovic. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid service disruptions and overhead as part of handover mechanisms (refer to paragraph 0008 of Damnjanovic).
However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the second component configured to provide voice data to one or more to one or more of the plurality of layers. In an analogous art, Claeson discloses this. Specifically, Claeson discloses a solution for providing a QoS non-fulfillment indication to an application in a client device, such as a low-latency indication that can give an application an early warning about QoS problems on the radio links (i.e., related to radio link degradation) (refer to paragraph 0132). The client device is enabled to communicate voice and/or data via the radio access network (paragraph 0161). As shown in Figures 11 and 12, the notifications regarding QoS non-fulfillment are provided from lower layers to upper layers (as described in paragraphs 0159-0160). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Turakhia / Damnjanovic with Claeson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow applications to take precautionary measures upon early detection on radio link problems (refer to paragraphs 0121 and 0122 of Claeson).
Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the same steps as performed by the user equipment device of Claim 21. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Turakhia, Damnjanovic and Claeson discloses wherein the RLD indication notifies the second component that the at least one adverse radio link condition exists and identifies a cause of the at least one adverse radio link condition (refer to paragraphs 0047-0048 of Damnjanovic – when DL channel quality is below a CQI threshold, the UE conveys a CQI=NULL to indicate the RLF condition). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Turakhia and Damnjanovic. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid service disruptions and overhead as part of handover mechanisms (refer to paragraph 0008 of Damnjanovic).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Turakhia, Damnjanovic and Claeson discloses wherein providing the RLD indication comprises providing the RLD indication to the second component during the active voice call (paragraph 0048 of Damnjanovic – an RLF indication triggers RLF timers to mitigate jitter and latency during communication session (i.e., voice or data transfer)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Turakhia and Damnjanovic. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid service disruptions and overhead as part of handover mechanisms (refer to paragraph 0008 of Damnjanovic).
Regarding Claim 4, Turakhia discloses wherein detecting the at least one adverse radio link condition comprises: responsive to monitoring the plurality of layers, detecting a signal strength update (paragraphs 0086-0088 – performing channel comparison comprises measuring RSRQ or SNR); responsive to detecting the signal strength update, accessing one or more signal-related characteristics associated with the signal strength update (paragraph 0086-0088 - performing channel comparison comprises measuring RSRQ or SNR); determining if a value associated with any of the one or more signal-related characteristics satisfies a corresponding threshold (paragraph 0088 – determining whether channel comparison (for RLF procedure) is satisfied includes determining that the serving cell channel parameter is below a first threshold); and responsive to the value associated with any of the one or more signal-related characteristics satisfying the corresponding threshold, determining that the at least one adverse radio link condition exists (paragraphs 0086-0089 – initiating RLF procedure is based on observed signal strength parameters being below a first threshold).
Regarding Claim 6, Turakhia discloses wherein the detected at least one adverse radio link condition is an out-of-sync condition (paragraph 0073 – the UE detects whether RLC layer ACKs have been received), and wherein providing the RLD indication comprises: determining that a radio link failure (RLF) timer has been initiated in response to the out-of-sync condition occurring (paragraphs 0072-0073 – an RLF timer has been initiated and the UE detects RLC layer ACKs have not been received); and providing the RLD indication to the second component upon initiation of the RLF timer and prior to the RLF timer expiring (paragraph 0076 – if the counter for the number of missing RLC ACKs exceeds a threshold, a subsequent determination is made in order to initiate RLF procedures (as shown in steps 425, 445 and 450 which occur after RLF timer is initiated but prior to the RLF time expiration).
Regarding Claim 7, Turakhia discloses responsive to detecting one of the following: an in-sync condition occurring while the RLF timer is active (Figure 4 at 420 – it is determined that the RLC ACK is received), the RLF timer having expired (Figure 4 at 440 – the RLF timer expires), or the RLF timer having expired and the UE device successfully performing a radio resource control (RRC) connection re-establishment procedure (Note: this is claimed in the alternative), resetting an RLD indication internally maintained by the first component (Figure 4 at 445 – after the RLC ACK is received and if it is determined that the serving cell channel parameter is better than the target cell serving parameter, the UE returns to monitoring channel conditions at 405).
Regarding Claim 9, Turakhia discloses wherein the detected at least one adverse radio link condition is a radio link control (RLC) maximum retransmission condition associated with data traffic (paragraph 0086), and wherein providing the RLD indication comprises: determining that the RLC maximum retransmission condition resulted in a radio link failure (RLF) (paragraphs 0086-0089 – RLF determination is based on a number of unsuccessful RLC layer retransmissions exceeding a threshold); and responsive to the RLF, providing the RLD indication to the second component (Figure 6 and paragraphs 0087-0089 – the RLF procedure module (620, separate from radio link condition module 610) may initiate an RLF procedure based on detecting the radio link condition).
Regarding Claim 11, Turakhia further discloses wherein detecting the at least one adverse radio link condition comprises: determining a required bandwidth at a first layer of the plurality of layers for current voice traffic on a downlink channel associated with the active voice call (paragraph 0041 – UEs may access cells via licensed or unlicensed frequency bands (i.e., bandwidth at a physical layer)); determining a current throughput at a second layer of the plurality of layers on a dedicated voice radio bearer associated with the active voice call (paragraph 0086 – the UE can monitor parameters such as guaranteed bit rate at application layer); and responsive to the required bandwidth being greater than the current throughput, determining that a low capability condition exists at the first layer (paragraph 0086 - radio link conditions may be based on application layer parameters such as guaranteed bit rate (GBR)).
Regarding Claim 14, Turakhia discloses determining a required bandwidth for outgoing voice traffic associated with the active voice call at a first layer of the plurality of layers (paragraph 0041 – UEs may access cells via licensed or unlicensed frequency bands (i.e., bandwidth at a physical layer)); determining a currently achieved throughput at a second layer of the plurality of layers on an uplink channel associated with the active voice call (paragraph 0086 – the UE can monitor parameters such as guaranteed bit rate at application layer); and responsive to the required bandwidth being greater than the currently achieved throughput, determining that a low capability condition exists at the second layer (paragraph 0086 - radio link conditions may be based on application layer parameters such as guaranteed bit rate (GBR)).
Regarding Claim 17, Turakhia discloses determining that a high transmission power deficit condition exists (paragraphs 0086-0088 – performing channel comparison comprises measuring RSRQ or SNR of the transmitted signal from the base station); and determining that a throughput of outgoing voice packets at a first layer of the plurality of layers is less than a throughput of voice traffic generated at a second layer of the plurality of layers (paragraph 0041 – UEs may access cells via licensed or unlicensed frequency bands (i.e., bandwidth at a physical layer); paragraph 0086 - radio link conditions may be based on application layer parameters such as guaranteed bit rate (GBR)).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Turakhia and Damnjanovic discloses wherein monitoring the plurality of layers of the communication stack of the UE device during the active voice call comprises monitoring at least one parameter across one or more of the plurality of layers of the communication stack (paragraph 0086 of Turakhia – parameters such as BLER, QCI, GBR are monitored across multiple layers of the communication stack (e.g., PHY, MAC, RLC, application)), the at least one parameter associated with maintenance of the active voice call (paragraph 0048 of Damnjanovic – performing RLF processing based on CQI observed during an active voice transfer); and wherein detecting the at least one adverse radio link condition associated with the active voice call comprises detecting the at least one adverse radio link condition associated with the active voice call based on the at least one parameter (paragraphs 0086-0087 of Turakhia – detection of RLF radio link condition is based on the monitored parameters). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Turakhia and Damnjanovic. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid service disruptions and overhead as part of handover mechanisms (refer to paragraph 0008 of Damnjanovic).
Regarding Claim 20, Turakhia discloses wherein detecting the at least one adverse radio link condition associated with the active voice call based on the at least one parameter comprises detecting the at least one adverse radio link condition responsive to the at least one parameter satisfying a predetermined criteria (paragraph 0086 - in some examples, the radio link condition module may determine that a threshold number of UL messages, such as measurement report messages (MRM) and/or other UL radio link signaling messages, have been transmitted without an RLC layer ACK. In some examples, the radio link condition module may determine any of: a number of unsuccessful RLC layer retransmissions exceeding a threshold, a lack of UL grants, a scheduling request exhaustion, an N310 parameter, or the like).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turakhia in view of Damnjanovic and Claeson, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Pawar et al (United States Patent 10021693), hereinafter Pawar. The combination of Turakhia, Damnjanovic and Claeson discloses the limitations of Claim 4, as set forth above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose determining if transmission time interval bundling is enabled at the UE device; responsive to TTI bundling being enabled, selecting the corresponding threshold from a first set of thresholds; and responsive to TTI bundling being disabled, selecting the corresponding threshold from a second set of thresholds, wherein the second set of thresholds are set lower than the first set of thresholds. In an analogous art, Pawar discloses this. Specifically, Pawar discloses the downlink receive signal strength threshold could optimally be a value that is lower (weaker downlink receive signal strength) than the downlink receive signal strength threshold that the eNodeB would apply for triggering TTI-bundling by the UE (i.e., the threshold hold for TTI-enabled is higher than the threshold for TTI-disabled (column 8, lines 18-28). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Turakhia / Damnjanovic / Claeson with Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve RF coverage and voice quality (refer to column 3, lines 17-30 of Pawar).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turakhia in view of Damnjanovic and Claeson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0394799), hereinafter Jin.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Turakhia, Damnjanovic and Claeson discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as set forth above. Turakhia further discloses the detected at least one adverse radio link condition is an out-of-sync condition (paragraph 0073 – the UE detects whether RLC layer ACKs have been received). However the aforementioned references do not disclose determining that a radio link failure (RLF) timer has expired, the RLF timer having been initiated in response to the out-of-sync condition (903) occurring; responsive to the RLF timer having expired, determining that the UE device (102) has successfully performed a radio resource control (RRC) connection re-establishment procedure; and responsive to the successful RRC connection re-establishment procedure (911), resetting an RLD indication internally maintained by the first component. In an analogous art, Jin discloses, at paragraph 0145, while the timer (T310) operates, the UE does not perform an operation for the recovery of a radio link. Furthermore, when an “in-sync” indicator is received from the physical layer by the number of times N311 or an RRC reconfiguration message for re-establishing a connection is received before the timer T310 expires, the timer T310 is stopped. If the timer T310 expires, the UE declares an RLF (7-20) and performs an RRC Connection re-establishment procedure (7-25). The UE performs cell selection, MAC reset, RB suspension, PDCP re-establishment, etc. as the RRC Connection re-establishment procedure. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Turakhia / Damnjanovic / Claeson with Jin. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the UE to recover from being out-of-sync with the expected downlink transmissions from the base station (refer to paragraph 0145 of Jin).
Claims 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turakhia in view of Damnjanovic and Claeson, as applied to claims 11, 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Sakhnini et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0306059), hereinafter Sakhnini.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Turakhia, Damnjanovic and Claeson discloses the limitations of Claim 11, as set forth above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose responsive to determining that a low capability condition exists, incrementing a low capability count; and comparing the low capability count to a low capability count threshold, wherein the RLD indication is provided to the second component (604) responsive to the low capability count satisfying the low capability count threshold. In an analogous art, Sakhnini discloses this. Specifically, at paragraphs 0095-0096 and Figure 5 at steps 520-525, Sakhnini discloses the UE detecting a beam failure condition for particular bandwidth parts or hop regions and incrementing a counter for that particular bandwidth part or hop region. As described at paragraph 0120, the UE’s hop region manager may use counters with the bandwidth parts for determining radio link failure at the UE. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Turakhia / Damnjanovic / Claeson with Sakhnini. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve estimates for beam failures per bandwidth part and communication reliability (paragraph 0045 of Sakhnini).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Turakhia, Damnjanovic, Claeson and Sakhnini further discloses wherein responsive to the low capability count failing to satisfy the low capability count threshold, resetting an RLD indication internally maintained by the first component indicating the at least one adverse radio link condition exists (Sakhnini at paragraph 0120, the UE’s hop region manager may use counters with the bandwidth parts for determining radio link failure at the UE). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Turakhia / Damnjanovic / Claeson with Sakhnini. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve estimates for beam failures per bandwidth part and communication reliability (paragraph 0045 of Sakhnini).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Turakhia, Damnjanovic and Claeson discloses the limitations of Claim 14, as set forth above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose detecting the at least one adverse radio link condition comprises: responsive to determining that a low capability condition exists, incrementing a low capability count; and comparing the low capability count to a low capability count threshold, wherein the RLD indication is provided to the second component responsive to the low capability count satisfying the low capability count threshold. In an analogous art, Sakhnini discloses this. Specifically, at paragraphs 0095-0096 and Figure 5 at steps 520-525, Sakhnini discloses the UE detecting a beam failure condition for particular bandwidth parts or hop regions and incrementing a counter for that particular bandwidth part or hop region. As described at paragraph 0120, the UE’s hop region manager may use counters with the bandwidth parts for determining radio link failure at the UE. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Turakhia / Damnjanovic / Claeson with Sakhnini. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve estimates for beam failures per bandwidth part and communication reliability (paragraph 0045 of Sakhnini).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Turakhia, Damnjanovic, Claeson and Sakhnini further discloses wherein responsive to the low capability count failing to satisfy the low capability count threshold, resetting an RLD indication internally maintained by the first component indicating the at least one adverse radio link condition exists (Sakhnini at paragraph 0120, the UE’s hop region manager may use counters with the bandwidth parts for determining radio link failure at the UE). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Turakhia / Damnjanovic / Claeson with Sakhnini. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve estimates for beam failures per bandwidth part and communication reliability (paragraph 0045 of Sakhnini).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Turakhia, Damnjanovic and Claeson discloses the limitations of Claim 17, as set forth above. Turakhia further discloses detecting a transmission power deficit and comparing the transmission power deficit to a transmission power deficit threshold (paragraphs 0086-0088 – performing channel comparison comprises measuring RSRQ or SNR of the transmitted signal from the base station). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose responsive to the transmission power deficit satisfying the transmission power deficit threshold, incrementing a high transmission power deficit count; determining, for a monitoring window of a given number of transmission instances, a ratio of high transmission power deficit instances based on the high transmission power deficit count; and responsive to the ratio of high transmission power deficit instances satisfying a ratio threshold, determining that the high transmission power deficit condition exists. In an analogous art, Sakhnini discloses this. Specifically, at paragraphs 0095-0096 and Figure 5 at steps 520-525, Sakhnini discloses the UE detecting a beam failure condition for particular bandwidth parts or hop regions and incrementing a counter for that particular bandwidth part or hop region. As described at paragraph 0120, the UE’s hop region manager may use counters with the bandwidth parts for determining radio link failure at the UE. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Turakhia / Damnjanovic / Claeson with Sakhnini. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve estimates for beam failures per bandwidth part and communication reliability (paragraph 0045 of Sakhnini).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turakhia in view of Damnjanovic. Turakhia discloses a user equipment (UE) (Figure 8, user equipment 115-d) comprising:
a communication processor to detect at least one adverse radio link condition (Figure 6 at 610 and paragraph 0086 – UE 115-c comprises a radio link condition module that can detect radio link condition according to RLC layer metrics as well as PHY layer or MAC layer metrics); and
an application processor to receive a radio link degradation indication in response to the communication processor detecting the at least one adverse radio link condition (Figure 6 and paragraphs 0087-0089 – the RLF procedure module (620, separate from radio link condition module 610) may initiate an RLF procedure based on detecting the radio link condition).
However, while Turakhia discloses detecting the radio link condition based on a traffic type indication, where the traffic type may be Voice over LTE (VoLTE) (refer to paragraph 0086), Turakhia does not disclose an indication associated with an active voice call. In an analogous art, Damnjanovic discloses this. Specifically, Damnjanovic discloses a UE monitoring channel quality and processing RLF indications during a communication session (i.e., a voice or data transfer) (refer to paragraphs 0047-0048). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Turakhia and Damnjanovic. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid service disruptions and overhead as part of handover mechanisms (refer to paragraph 0008 of Damnjanovic).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e., dependent claim 9). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Zhang (“Drop Call Optimization” chapter from LTE Optimization Engineering Handbook) discloses a UE reaching a maximum retransmission tries and starting a timer as part of radio link failure procedure (Section 6.1.2.3), as well as the UE starting an RRC connection reestablishment procedure (Figure 6.15). However, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, does not disclose responsive to the successful completion of the RRC connection re-establishment procedure, determining if any other adverse radio link conditions exist; responsive to at least one other adverse radio link condition existing, providing an updated RLD indication to the second component indicating that the least one other adverse radio link condition exists and that the RLC maximum retransmission condition no longer exists; and responsive to no other adverse radio link conditions existing, resetting an RLD indication internally maintained by the first component.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
