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
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210127447) in view of Kumar (US 20220361065), and further in view of Ma (US 20220345951).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/9, Zhang teaches A method performed by a wireless device operating in dual connectivity ([0040], “the UE performs communications with base stations of a master cell group (MCG) and a secondary cell group (SCG).”) with a master cell group (MCG) comprising a first network node ([0003], “the serving cell group controlled by MN is called the Master Cell Group (MCG)”, wherein the MN is master node.) and a secondary cell group (SCG) comprising a second network node ([0003], “the serving cell group controlled by SN is called the Secondary Cell Group (SCG),” wherein the SN is secondary node.), the method comprising:
detecting a failure on the SCG ([0183-0184], “The UE detects that at least one of the following failure conditions has occurred in the SCG. an SCG wireless connection failure”);
upon determining the MCG is not suspended, transmitting a first message to the first network node, the first message comprising a first set of information associated with the detected failure on the SCG ([0188], “If the MCG transmission is not suspended, the UE triggers/activates a procedure to send SCG failure information for reporting SCG failure.);
upon determining the MCG is suspended ([0188], “If the MCG transmission is suspended, the UE triggers/activates an RRC connection re-establishment procedure.”),
transmitting a second message to a third network node ([0188], “If the MCG transmission is suspended, the UE triggers/activates an RRC connection re-establishment procedure.”).
However, Zhang does not teach the second message comprising the first set of information and a second set of information; wherein the second set of information includes one or more of: a cell identifier of a primary secondary cell (PSCell) in which the wireless device detected the failure; a cell identifier of a PSCell in which the wireless device received a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG; a time between a reception of a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG and a time of detecting the failure; and a cell identifier of a PCell at a time of declaring the failure.
In an analogous art, Kumar teaches upon determining the MCG is suspended ([0127], “In such examples (e.g., where a connection with the first base station 110 (e.g., with the PCell or the MCG) is lost or suspended).” In other words, the connection between a UE and the MCG is suspended.”),
transmitting ([0127], “the UE 120 may establish a connection with a second PCell (...a different PCell) ... The UE 120 may transmit, to the second PCell, a radio link failure report.”) a second message ([0127], “a radio link failure report”) to a third network node ([0127], “the second PCell”), the second message ([0127], “The UE 120 may transmit, to the second PCell, a radio link failure report indicating information associated with the lost or suspended connection with the first base station 110.” Also, “the UE 120 may transmit, to the second PCell, SCG failure information” in the same “radio link failure report.”) comprising the first set of information ([0127], “a radio link failure report indicating information associated with the lost or suspended connection with the first base station 110.”) and a second set of information ([0127], “the UE 120 may transmit, to the second PCell, SCG failure information” in the same “radio link failure report.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify transmitting SCG failure information to a second PCell as taught by Kumar. The motivation/suggestion would have been because first PCell is suspended.
However, the combination of Zhang and Kumar does not teach wherein the second set of information includes one or more of: a cell identifier of a primary secondary cell (PSCell) in which the wireless device detected the failure; a cell identifier of a PSCell in which the wireless device received a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG; a time between a reception of a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG and a time of detecting the failure; and a cell identifier of a PCell at a time of declaring the failure.
In an analogous art, Ma teaches wherein the second set of information includes one or more of:
a cell identifier of a primary secondary cell (PSCell) in which the wireless device detected the failure ([0013], “the first message may include at least one of following information: a primary secondary cell (PSCell) identifier of the SN2 where the SCG failure occurs.”);
a cell identifier of a PSCell in which the wireless device received a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG;
a time between a reception of a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG and a time of detecting the failure; and
a cell identifier of a PCell at a time of declaring the failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify reporting SCG failure information as taught by Ma. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is need to indicate which Pscell in SCG having a failure.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2/10, Zhang teaches further comprising performing one of a reestablishment procedure ([0188], “If the MCG transmission is suspended, the UE triggers/activates an RRC connection re-establishment procedure.”), handover procedure, and access procedure with respect to the third network node.
Regarding claim(s) 3/11, Kumar teaches wherein the first message and the second message comprise a combined message including the first set of information and the second set of information ([0127], “the UE 120 may transmit, to the second PCell, SCG failure information (e.g., associated with the CPAC procedure and/or the CPAC recovery procedure) in the radio link failure report.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify transmitting SCG failure information to a second PCell as taught by Kumar. The motivation/suggestion would have been because first PCell is suspended.
Regarding claim(s) 5/13, Kumar teaches wherein the second set of information includes one or more of a failure type ([0127], “The UE 120 may transmit, to the second PCell, a radio link failure report indicating information associated with the lost or suspended connection with the first base station 110.”) and a time of failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify transmitting SCG failure information to a second PCell as taught by Kumar. The motivation/suggestion would have been because first PCell is suspended.
Regarding claim(s) 7/15, Zhang teaches wherein detecting the failure on the SCG comprises one of detecting a radio link failure ([0184], “an SCG wireless connection failure”) and detecting a handover failure.
Claim(s) 17, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210127447) in view of Background section of the instant application (US 20250240843), hereinafter Background, and further in view of Ma.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 17/23, Zhang teaches A method performed by a third network node, the method comprising:
receiving a message from a wireless device operating in dual connectivity with a master cell group (MCG) and a secondary cell group (SCG) ([0040], “the UE performs communications with base stations of a master cell group (MCG) and a secondary cell group (SCG).”), the message including a set of information with respect to a failure detected by the wireless device with respect to the SCG ([0188], “If the MCG transmission is not suspended, the UE triggers/activates a procedure to send SCG failure information for reporting SCG failure.”).
However, Zhang does not teach transmitting the set of information with respect to the detected failure to a first network node in the MCG.
In an analogous art, Background teaches transmitting the set of information with respect to the detected failure to a first network node in the MCG ([0018], “The SCG failure may be forwarded from the secondary node to the master node (MN).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify reporting SCG failure information as taught by Background. The motivation/suggestion would have been because the MN can determine SCG failure.
However, the combination of Zhang and Background does not teach wherein the second set of information includes one or more of: a cell identifier of a PSCell in which the wireless device detected the failure; a cell identifier of a PSCell in which the wireless device received a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG: a time between a reception of a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG and a time of detecting the failure; and a cell identifier of a PCell at a time of declaring the failure.
In an analogous art, Ma teaches wherein the second set of information includes one or more of: a cell identifier of a PSCell in which the wireless device detected the failure ([0013], “the first message may include at least one of following information: a primary secondary cell (PSCell) identifier of the SN2 where the SCG failure occurs.”); a cell identifier of a PSCell in which the wireless device received a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG: a time between a reception of a last executed reconfiguration with sync message for the SCG and a time of detecting the failure; and a cell identifier of a PCell at a time of declaring the failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify reporting SCG failure information as taught by Ma. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is need to indicate which Pscell in SCG having a failure.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 21, Zhang teaches wherein detecting the failure on the SCG comprises one of detecting a radio link failure ([0184], “an SCG wireless connection failure”) and detecting a handover failure.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kumar and Ma, and further in view of Kumar (US 20230026279), hereinafter Kumar2.
Regarding claim(s) 6/14, Kumar2 teaches wherein the second set of information includes random access information ([0004], “one or more reports may include an SCG failure information message, a random access (RA) report, a radio link failure (RLF) report.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify reporting SCG failure information as taught by Kumar2. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is need to enhance information related to SCG.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kumar and Ma, and further in view of Wang (US 20230262566).
Regarding claim(s) 8/16, Wang teaches transmitting an indication to a network node that the second set of information is available at the wireless device ([0080], “the terminal device 110 may transmit 210 an indication of availability of the SCG failure information to the second network device.”); and
receiving a request from the network node for the second set of information ([0080], “the network side can request for the SCG failure information in case of necessary.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify indicating availability of SCG failure information as taught by Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is need to request failure information in case of necessary.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Background and Ma, and further in view of Kumar.
Regarding claim(s) 19, Kumar teaches wherein the second set of information includes one or more of a failure type ([0127], “The UE 120 may transmit, to the second PCell, a radio link failure report indicating information associated with the lost or suspended connection with the first base station 110.”) and a time of failure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify transmitting SCG failure information to a second PCell as taught by Kumar. The motivation/suggestion would have been because first PCell is suspended.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Background and Ma, and further in view of Kumar2.
Regarding claim(s) 20, Kumar2 teaches wherein the second set of information includes random access information ([0004], “one or more reports may include an SCG failure information message, a random access (RA) report, a radio link failure (RLF) report.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify reporting SCG failure information as taught by Kumar2. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is need to enhance information related to SCG.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Background and Ma, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim(s) 22, Wang teaches transmitting an indication to a network node that the second set of information is available at the wireless device ([0080], “the terminal device 110 may transmit 210 an indication of availability of the SCG failure information to the second network device.”); and
receiving a request from the network node for the second set of information ([0080], “the network side can request for the SCG failure information in case of necessary.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhang to specify indicating availability of SCG failure information as taught by Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is need to request failure information in case of necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See updated mapping in claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (Remark page 10, 2nd paragraph and Remark page 11, 2nd paragraph)
“Applicant respectfully submits that neither Zhang nor Kumar disclose the concept of a first set of information when the MCG is not suspended and a second set of information when the MCG is suspended, as claimed.”
“Thus, Kumar discloses that the UE transmits SCG failure information to the MCG if the MCG is not suspended and transmits SCG failure information to a second PCell if the MCG is suspended. There is no disclosure in Kumar, however, that the SCG failure information is any different when sent to the MCG or when sent to the second PCell.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cited teaching from Zhang, which discloses the UE will respond differently when MCG is suspended and when MCG is not suspended. When the MCG is not suspended, the UE reports the SCG failure. When the MCG is suspended, the UE triggers RRC re-establishment procedure.
Secondary reference by Kumar which cures the deficiency of when the MCG is suspended, the UE will send both the first and second set of information. Kumar discloses the UE transmits a radio link failure report, to a second PCell, includes both indications of a) MCG is suspended, and b) failure of SCG.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, the rejections are sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights