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 .
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 1,2,27,28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) .
For independent claim 1, Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) discloses a system/method comprising a first network node for wireless communication, comprising: a memory [paragraph 165]; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory [paragraph 165] and configured to:
receive, from a second network node, downlink control information (DCI)[paragraph 7, 67];perform, after the BWP switch, a BWP switch failure detection procedure
that results in a first determination [paragraph 36: target signal
is detected; it is at least implicit that when changing the BWP, detection of the target is triggered; see paragraph 57, 63] or a second determination [paragraph 37:
target signal is not detected], wherein the first determination is
indicative that the BWP switch was successful and the second determination is indicative that the BWP switch was not successful [at least implicit in paragraphs 37, 38, because a failure recovery process is triggered by not detecting the target signal, and
a non-transitory computer readable medium (see paragraph 178).
The independent claims 27 and 30 are rejected for the same reason indicated in claim 1.
For dependent claims 2,28,and 10, Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) also discloses wherein to perform the BWP switch failure detection procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether one or more failure conditions are satisfied ( See paragraph 83); and wherein to determine the one or more failure conditions are satisfied, the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the one or more failure conditions are satisfied within a detection window ( See paragraph 83).
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.
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 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 3,5, 8,9,and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) in view of Nagaraja et al. (2019/319833).
For dependent claims 3,5, 8,9,and 29 , Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415 disclose all the claimed invention with the exception of
wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP; wherein the one or more tune away events include a partial tune away event or a full tune away event;. Wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the second determination based on the occurrence of the one or more failure conditions; wherein, based on the second determination, the at least one processor is configured to perform at least one of: a first random access channel (RACH) procedure on the first BWP; a second RACH procedure on the second BWP; or a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure; and wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP in a communications network. Nagaraja et al. (2019/319833) from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP; wherein the one or more tune away events include a partial tune away event or a full tune away event;. Wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the second determination based on the occurrence of the one or more failure conditions; wherein, based on the second determination, the at least one processor is configured to perform at least one of: a first random access channel (RACH) procedure on the first BWP; a second RACH procedure on the second BWP; or a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure; and wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP ( See paragraphs 0050, 0062, 0069, and 70-72). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP; wherein the one or more tune away events include a partial tune away event or a full tune away event;. Wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the second determination based on the occurrence of the one or more failure conditions; wherein, based on the second determination, the at least one processor is configured to perform at least one of: a first random access channel (RACH) procedure on the first BWP; a second RACH procedure on the second BWP; or a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure; and wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP as taught by Nagaraja et al. (2019/319833) in the communication network of Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) for the purpose of making the system more reliable.
claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) in view of Nagaraja et al. (2019/319833) and further in view of Cirik et al. (2019/306867).
For dependent claims 6-7 and 10, Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) in view of Nagaraja et al. (2019/319833) disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the first determination based on non-occurrence of the one or more failure conditions, and wherein, based on the first determination, the at least one processor is configured to not perform at least one of: a first random access channel (RACH) procedure on the first BWP; a second RACH procedure on the second BWP; or a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure and wherein to determine the one or more failure conditions are satisfied, the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the one or more failure conditions are satisfied within a detection window. Cirik et al. (2019/306867) from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the first determination based on non-occurrence of the one or more failure conditions, and wherein, based on the first determination, the at least one processor is configured to not perform at least one of: a first random access channel (RACH) procedure on the first BWP; a second RACH procedure on the second BWP; or a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure in the communications network of ( See paragraphs 62 ,60 and 464-465) in the communications of Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) in view of Nagaraja et al. (2019/319833) for the purpose of making the system more reliable.
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 11-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) in view of Cirik et al. (2019/306867) and further in view of Nagaraja et al. (2019/319833).
For claims 11-26, Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) in view of Cirik et al. discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP;
wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the first determination based on non-occurrence of the one or more failure conditions; wherein to perform the BWP switch failure detection procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the second network node, one or more probe requests after a determination that the one or more failure conditions are satisfied within the detection window; and determine whether at least one uplink grant is received on the second BWP from the second network node; wherein the one or more probe requests are one or more scheduling requests (SRs); wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the first determination when the at least one uplink grant is received on the second BWP; wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the second determination when no uplink grant is received on the second BWP;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform, based on the second determination, a BWP switch failure handling procedure; wherein to perform the BWP switch failure handling procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure on the second BWP; wherein to perform the BWP switch failure handling procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: switch from the second BWP to the first BWP; and perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure on the first BWP; wherein to perform the BWP switch failure handling procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: perform a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure; wherein to perform the RLF recovery procedure, the at least one processor is configured to perform the RLF recovery procedure after at least one of: a first random access channel (RACH) procedure is performed on the first BWP; or a second RACH procedure is performed on the second BWP; wherein the BWP switch failure handling procedure comprises at least one of: a first random access channel (RACH) procedure on the first BWP; a second RACH procedure on the second BWP; or a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure; wherein the BWP switch failure handling procedure comprises at least one of a switch from the second BWP to the first BWP, a random access channel (RACH) procedure on the second BWP, or a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure; wherein the switch from the second BWP to the first BWP is performed when the first BWP and the second BWP are associated with different RACH search spaces and no tune away events associated with a duration longer than a second threshold have occurred; wherein the RACH procedure on the second BWP is performed when the first BWP and the second BWP are associated with different RACH search spaces or a same RACH search space; wherein the RLF recovery procedure is performed when: at least one tune away event of the one or more tune away events is associated with a duration longer than a second threshold; or the RACH procedure on the second BWP cannot be completed successfully; and
wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP in a communication network. Claims . Nagaraja et al. (2019/319833) from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP;
wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the first determination based on non-occurrence of the one or more failure conditions; wherein to perform the BWP switch failure detection procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the second network node, one or more probe requests after a determination that the one or more failure conditions are satisfied within the detection window; and determine whether at least one uplink grant is received on the second BWP from the second network node; wherein the one or more probe requests are one or more scheduling requests (SRs); wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the first determination when the at least one uplink grant is received on the second BWP; wherein the BWP switch failure detection procedure results in the second determination when no uplink grant is received on the second BWP;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform, based on the second determination, a BWP switch failure handling procedure; wherein to perform the BWP switch failure handling procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure on the second BWP; wherein to perform the BWP switch failure handling procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: switch from the second BWP to the first BWP; and perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure on the first BWP; wherein to perform the BWP switch failure handling procedure, the at least one processor is configured to: perform a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure; wherein to perform the RLF recovery procedure, the at least one processor is configured to perform the RLF recovery procedure after at least one of: a first random access channel (RACH) procedure is performed on the first BWP; or a second RACH procedure is performed on the second BWP; wherein the BWP switch failure handling procedure comprises at least one of: a first random access channel (RACH) procedure on the first BWP; a second RACH procedure on the second BWP; or a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure; wherein the BWP switch failure handling procedure comprises at least one of a switch from the second BWP to the first BWP, a random access channel (RACH) procedure on the second BWP, or a radio link failure (RLF) recovery procedure; wherein the switch from the second BWP to the first BWP is performed when the first BWP and the second BWP are associated with different RACH search spaces and no tune away events associated with a duration longer than a second threshold have occurred; wherein the RACH procedure on the second BWP is performed when the first BWP and the second BWP are associated with different RACH search spaces or a same RACH search space; wherein the RLF recovery procedure is performed when: at least one tune away event of the one or more tune away events is associated with a duration longer than a second threshold; or the RACH procedure on the second BWP cannot be completed successfully; and
wherein the one or more failure conditions include at least one of: a block error rate (BLER) greater than a threshold, wherein the BLER is associated with an uplink channel on which the first network node is configured to communicate with the second network node; occurrence of one or more tune away events; or non-receipt of an uplink grant on the second BWP in a communication network as taught by Nagaraja et al. (2019/319833) in the communication network of Vivo Mobile Communication Co LTD(WO 2021233415) in view of Cirik et al. (2019/306867) for the purpose of making the system more reliable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANG T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-3171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 5:30 AM to 3:00 PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/DANG T TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /D.T.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476