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 .
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.
Claim(s) 29-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAN et al. (US 2024/0422632 A1) in view of MUHAMMAD TAYYAB et al. (TAYYAB)
Regarding claims 29, 38, 42, Yan discloses
A method performed by a user equipment (UE) for handling communication in a wireless communication network,
([0041] Before performing any transmission such as the handover process in the unlicensed spectrum, both the UE and the BS should perform the LBT procedure and sense the wireless channel, in order to ensure that the spectrum is not occupied by other transmissions which may be generated by non-3GPP technologies such as WiFi.)
wherein the SHR comprises an indicator indicating whether or not the UE has experienced a listen before talk (LBT) failure and/or a random access problem before successfully accessing a target cell in a handover (HO) procedure.
([0081]–[0100], [0155]–[0179], [0205]–[0207]; transmitting LBT info and HOF info to the network The LBT info includes cause, number, type, etc. of LBT failures during HO and [0081], [0090] the Random access channel (PRACH)problems that occur.
YAN does not specifically disclose the claimed the method comprising transmitting a successful handover report (SHR) to a radio network node. However, YAN does disclose
([0081] at UE side, the first type of LBT failure, the second type of LBT failure, or the third type of LBT failure has been triggered in the target cell's uplink (UL) BWPs, which are configured with physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions when timer T304 is running.; and [0205] the indicating of failure from the UE’s the UE determines the first LBT information and/or first handover failure (HOF) information when a HOF occurs. The first LBT information may be stored when the first type of LBT failure (i.e., at least one first indication is received in one BWP but consistent LBT failure does not happen in this BWP) happens, when the second type of LBT failure (i.e., consistent LBT failure happens in at least one BWP but not in all the configured BWPs) happens, or when the third type of LBT failure (i.e., consistent LBT failure happens in all of the configured BWPs) happens. Alternatively, the first LBT information may be stored when the HOF happens.)
In the same field of endeavor, TAYYAB discloses a system including a mobility management, handover types, performance, and challenges in long-term evolution (LTE) and 5G new radio (NR). ([Page 118913; 2nd column] Step 11: As part of the HO procedure, one of the steps includes after UE successfully accesses the target cell, the UE sends the RRC connection reconfiguration complete message along with an uplink buffer status report to the target eNB which indicates that the HO procedure is completed for the UE. Then the target eNB starts sending data to the UE.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate TAYYAB’s teaching of transmitting a successful handover report (SHR) to a radio network node, which would provide a highly reliable cell selection with reduced HO PPs and failures that lead to high throughput.
Regarding claim 30, 43, Yan discloses
comprising detecting, during the HO procedure from a first radio network node to a second network node, one or more LBT failures and/or a random access problem.
([0082] …at UE side, the first type of LBT failure, the second type of LBT failure, or the third type of LBT failure has been triggered in the target cell's uplink (UL) BWPs, which are configured with physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions when timer T304 is running.)
Regarding claims 31, 44, Yan discloses
further comprising, upon successfully completing the handover procedure before a handover related timer expires, storing a first information indicating whether or not the UE has experienced LBT failure and/or a random access problem, wherein the indicator comprised in the transmitted SHR indicates the first information. ([00830 when timer T304 expires, there might have been a first type of LBT failure, a consistent LBT failure in one UL BWP, two consistent LBT failures in two UL BWPs, three consistent LBT failures in three UL BWPs, or four consistent LBT failures in the four UL BWPs. [0084] 2. the number of the first indication from UE's physical layer per BWP when timer T304 is running. [0085] For example, when timer T304 expires, the first type of LBT failure may have happened twice in the first BWP. [0086] 3. the total number of the first indication from UE's physical layer when timer T304 is running. [0087] For example, when timer T304 expires, the second type of LBT failure is triggered in the first BWP, and the first type of LBT failures are triggered twice in the second BWP. Therefore, when timer T304 expires, the total number of the first indication, i.e., the first indication which indicates the first type of LBT failure, is 10 plus 2, which is 12. [0088] 4. the total number of UL BWPs where LBT failure detection and recovery is performed in target cell when timer T304 is running. For example, the total number of UL BWPs where LBT failure detection and recovery is performed in target cell may be 3, then timer T304 expires.)
Regarding claims 32, 39, 45, Yan discloses
one or more uplink LBT failures experienced while the handover related timer was running; consistent uplink (UL) LBT failures detected in one or more UL bandwidth parts (BWP) configured with physical random access channel (PRACH) resources; and a random access problem experienced while the handover related timer was running. ([0098] 10. time elapsed in the UE for LBT failure detection and recovery per target cell's BWP.)
Regarding claims 33, 46, Yan discloses
further comprising including the indicator in the SHR, indicating that the UE has experienced one or more uplink (UL) LBT failures while a timer T304 was running and/or that the UE has experienced a random access problem while the timer T304 was running, and wherein said one or more uplink LBT failures were experienced for transmission of random access (RA)-related messages. ([0095] 7. the maximum allowed number of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP in the target cell, or a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP, i.e., Ibt-FailureInstanceMaxCount. For instance, the maximum allowed number of the first type of LBT failure may be 10, that is to say, after 10 first type of LBT failures in the BWP, a consistent LBT failure is triggered for the BWP, that is, the second type of LBT failure is triggered for the BWP. [0096] 8. the maximum allowed period for consistent LBT failure detection for each BWP in the target cell, or a maximum value of a second timer associated with a second type of LBT failure for each BWP, i.e., Ibt-FailureDetectionTimer.)
Regarding claims 34, 47, Yan discloses
wherein the indicator is only included in the SHR when the UE has experienced a number of uplink (UL) LBT failures greater than a certain threshold, in one or more UL bandwidth parts (BWP) where physical random access channel (PRACH) resources are configured.
([0088]…the total number of UL BWPs where LBT failure detection and recovery is performed in target cell may be 3, then timer T304 expires. [0089] 5. The second indication, in other words, the indication about whether consistent LBT failure has been triggered in all target cell's UL BWPs configured with (PRACH) occasions when timer T304 is expired; or indication about whether the second indication has been received from the UE's MAC layer when timer T304 is expired. [0090] 6. a time point of when the second indication is triggered); and ([0097] 9. one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions per BWP where LBT is performed. [0098] 10. time elapsed in the UE for LBT failure detection and recovery per target cell's BWP.)
Regarding claims 35, 36, 48, 49, Yan discloses
the indicator indicates a number of times the UE has received the LBT failure while trying to perform a random access procedure.
([0166] For instance, the first indication in the first BWP may be 10, the first indication in the second BWP may be 10, the first indication in the second BWP may be 9, and the first indication in the fourth BWP may be 8. [0167] 5. the total number of first indication from target cell's physical layer since receiving preamble, that is, the sum of the first indication in each BWP. [0168] 6. the total number of DL BWPs where LBT failure detection and recovery is performed in the target cell since receiving preamble; e.g., 4 DL BWPs.)
Regarding claims 37, 50, Yan discloses
the SHR further comprises a duration indication indicating a duration for which the UE experienced LBT issues while performing the handover procedure.
([0174] 8. the maximum allowed number of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP applied by the target node, or a maximum value of the first type of LBT failure for each BWP, i.e., Ibt-FailureInstanceMaxCount. For instance, the maximum allowed number of the first type of LBT failure may be 10, that is to say, after [0175] 10. first type of LBT failures in the BWP, a consistent LBT failure is triggered for the BWP, that is, the second type of LBT failure is triggered for the BWP.)
Regarding claims 40, 41, Yan discloses
performing radio optimization taking the indicator in the SHR into account.
([0040] through [0047] In this scenario, the UE may optimize LBT configuration when HOF occurs, or receive an indication for optimizing LBT configuration from a serving node, the serving node may be the re-establishment node or the source node.
Regarding claim 51, Yan discloses
(New) a radio network node for handling communication in a wireless communication network, wherein the radio network node comprises: processing circuitry configured to receive a successful handover report (SHR) from a UE, wherein the SHR comprises an indicator indicating whether or not the UE has experienced a listen before talk (LBT) failure and/or a random access problem before successfully accessing a target cell in a handover procedure.
([0210] In step 601, the source node may receive the first LBT information and/or first HOF information from the UE, or from a serving node, i.e. the re-establishment node. For example, in FIG. 2, in step 204, the source node receives the first LBT information and/or first HOF information from the UE; and in step 207, the source node receives the first LBT information and/or first HOF information of the UE from the re-establishment node.)
Regarding claim 52, Yan discloses
the indicator indicates at least one of the following: one or more LBT failures while a handover related timer is running; consistent uplink (UL) LBT failures in one or more UL bandwidth parts (BWP) where physical random access channel (PRACH) resources are configured; and a random access problem in a medium access control (MAC) layer while a handover related timer is running.
([0098] 10. time elapsed in the UE for LBT failure detection and recovery per target cell's BWP.)
Regarding claim 53, Yan discloses
the processing circuitry is further configured to perform radio optimization taking the indicator in the SHR into account.
([0040] through [0047] In this scenario, the UE may optimize LBT configuration when HOF occurs, or receive an indication for optimizing LBT configuration from a serving node, the serving node may be the re-establishment node or the source node.
Regarding claims 54, Yan discloses
the processing circuitry is further configured to provide information to another radio network node for performing radio optimization based on the indicator.
([0040] through [0047] In this scenario, the UE may optimize LBT configuration when HOF occurs, or receive an indication for optimizing LBT configuration from a serving node, the serving node may be the re-establishment node or the source node.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVETTA W GOINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM 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.
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.
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689