DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 11 September 2024, having drawing figures 1-11 and claims 1-15 and 18-22 (claims 16-17 were cancelled, and claims 21-22 were added).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronym RLF recited in line 1 of the abstract must be written as “Radio Link Failure (RLF)” the first time it is recited in the abstract.
The term “and/or” recited in line 4 of the abstract must be replaced by the word “or” or the phrase “at least one of.”
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).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 18, and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “and/or” recited in line 5 of claim 1 must be replaced by the phrase “at least one of” to render the claim affirmative.
The phrase “as well as” recited in lines 5 and 8 of claim 2 must be replaced by the word “and” to render the claim affirmative.
The phrase “as well as” recited in line 5 of claim 5 must be replaced by the word “and” to render the claim affirmative.
The phrase “as well as” recited in line 5 of claim 6 must be replaced by the word “and” to render the claim affirmative.
The phrase “as well as” recited in line 4 of claim 9 must be replaced by the word “and” to render the claim affirmative.
The acronym RLF recited in line 1 of claim 18 must be written as “Radio Link Failure (RLF)” the first time it is recited in the claim.
The term “and/or” recited in line 8 of claim 18 must be replaced by the phrase “at least one of” to render the claim affirmative.
The phrase “as well as” recited in lines 4 and 7 of claim 21 must be replaced by the word “and” to render the claim affirmative.
Claim 22 is an apparatus claim dependent upon a method claim. It is suggested that claim 22 be written in independent form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-14, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2019/0052377 A1).
For claim 13, Hwang discloses a radio link failure (RLF) detection method ([0192] the controller of the base station performs the RLF detection method), executed by a network device (Fig 23, gNB 2310) and comprising: determining configuration information related to RLF detection; and sending the configuration information, the configuration information being used for the RLF detection ([0204] the base station transmits configuration information comprising the RLF parameters which will be used by the terminal to detect RLF).
For claim 14, Hwang discloses the configuration information comprises at least one of: information of a second timer; start time information of a first timer ([0204] the RLF timer is starts when a threshold number of consecutive OOS indications occur);; a first value, the first value being used for starting the first timer ([0204] the RLF parameters comprise a RFL timer value); a starting condition, the starting condition being used for starting the first timer ([0204] the RLF timer is starts when a threshold number of consecutive OOS indications occur); or a stopping condition, the stopping condition being used for stopping the first timer ([0184] the RLF timer is stopped when a condition is met).
For claim 20, Hwang discloses a computer storage medium (Fig 21, storage 2130), used for storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the method according to claims 13 be implemented ([0192] the controller of the base station performs the RLF detection method).
For claim 22, Hwang discloses an RLF detection apparatus (Fig 21, base station or Fig 23, gNB 2310), comprising: a processor (Fig 21, controller 2120); and a memory (Fig 21, storage 2130), configured to store instructions executable by the processor (Fig 21, controller 2120), wherein the processor is configured to execute the RLF detection method according to claim 13 ([0192] the controller of the base station performs the RLF detection method).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 10-12, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2019/0052377 A1) in view of Wu (US 2021/0377771 A1).
For claims 1 and 18, Hwang discloses radio link failure (RLF) detection method, executed by a terminal (Fig 22, terminal) and comprising: determining configuration information related to RLF detection ([0204] the terminal receives RLF configuration parameters from the base station); and starting a first timer based on the configuration information, the first timer being used for the RLF detection ([0184] and [0204] when a number of consecutive OOS indications are generated, RLF is detected and RLF timer starts running, wherein [0186] the threshold number of consecutive OOS indications are indicated in the configuration information (i.e., RLF parameters) received from the base station).
For claims 1 and 18, Hwang does not expressly disclose determining location information of the terminal, and starting the first timer based on the location information of the terminal.
Wu, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a terminal (UE) determining a radio link failure based on the geolocation information of the UE and reporting the RLF to a network device [0034]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to detect RLF based on the location of the UE and thereby starting a timer with a timer value in the communication network of Hwang based on the location of the UE as taught by Wu at the time of the invention.
For claims 2 and 21, starting the first timer based on the configuration information and the location information of the terminal comprises: starting the first timer based on a starting condition comprised in the configuration information ([0204] the RLF timer is starts when a threshold number of consecutive OOS indications occur); as well as a relative location relationship between the terminal and a satellite; or starting the first timer based on the starting condition comprised in the configuration information, as well as a relative location relationship between the terminal and a cell ([0184] when a number of consecutive OOS indications are generated, RLF is detected and RLF timer starts running, wherein [0186] the threshold number of consecutive OOS indications are indicated in the configuration information (i.e., RLF parameters) received from the base station; [0009] the moving average and [0003] and transmission distance are factors used to determine channel conditions to detect RLF and thereby, starts the RLF timer).
For claim 3, Hwang discloses starting the first timer based on information of a second timer comprised in the configuration information; or starting the first timer based on start time information of the first timer comprised in the configuration information ([0184] when a number of consecutive OOS indications are generated, RLF is detected and RLF timer starts running, wherein [0186] the threshold number of consecutive OOS indications are indicated in the configuration information (i.e., RLF parameters) received from the base station).
For claim 4, Hwang discloses starting the first timer based on the configuration information comprises: starting, in response to determining that the configuration information comprises a first value ([0204] a RLF timer value is indicated in the configuration information transmitted to the UE from the network device), the first timer upon receiving consecutive out-of-sync indications for the first value times ([0184] and [0204] when a number of consecutive OOS indications are generated, RLF is detected and RLF timer starts running).
For claim 10, Hwang discloses the start time information comprises a start time threshold value ([0204] a RLF timer value is indicated in the configuration information transmitted to the UE from the network device).
For claim 11, Hwang discloses determining timeout of the first timer ([0184] the timer is stopped); and determining that an RLF is detected ([0184] when a number of consecutive OOS indications are generated, RLF is detected and RLF timer starts running).
For claim 12, Hwang discloses stopping the first timer in response to determining that a stopping condition is met ([0184] the RLF timer is stopped when a condition is met).
For claim 19, Hwang discloses a computer storage medium (Fig 22, storage 2230), used for storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the method according to claim 1 to be implemented ([0199] the controller of the terminal performs the RLF detection method steps based on executed instructions stored on storage 2230 [0194]).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5-9 and 15 are 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.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471