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
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 58-61, 65, 74 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al PG PUB 2019/0181969 in view of JEON et al PG PUB 2023/0125913.
Re Claims 58 and 74, ZHANG et al teaches in figure 4, 430 teaches detecting OOS indication (loss of connectivity) between a mobile station (a radio unit comprising a communication circuitry and processing circuitry) and a Base station (a baseband unit) [0054 0098]; based on the OSS indication, 450 transmitting reference signals after the OSS in order to perform connection re-establishment for a UE declared a RLF with the base station.
However, ZHANG et al teaches the base station, See figure 8, can conform with LTE, 5G networks [0035]. It is known to one skilled that the base station of 5G and LTE supports a fronthaul interface between DU (baseband processor 805) and RU (RF transceiver 802A). JEON et al teaches a failure may occur in the fronthaul and may dropped the call due to electrical connection between the DU and RU [0125] and perform fronthaul recovery [0126]. By combining the teachings, in view of JEON et al, when a failure is detected between the baseband processor 805 and RF transceiver 802A in ZHANG et al, the baseband processor can perform the fronthaul recovery within the LTE or 5G base station and transmit reference signals to perform connection re-establishment for a UE (one or more UEs). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have detected the loss of connectivity in the fronthaul between the RU and BU for reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 59, ZHANG et al teaches the OOS is based on a unplanned loss of connectivity with the base station.
Re Claim 60, ZHANG et al teaches 450 generating the reference signals with a increased SNR ratio with a sufficient length of time to allow a correctly operating mobile station to perform connection re-establishment [0098].
Re Claim 61, ZHANG et al teaches configuring one or more time periods and start an OOS timer (outage timer) [0054] responsive to the OOS indication in figure 4, 430, wherein the references associated with a respective SNR ratio is transmitted until the OOS timer expires.
Re Claims 67 and 75, refer to Claim 58, JEON et al teaches when the failure is detected on the fronthaul (a temporary loss of connectivity), wherein the failure interrupting the communications with the RU. Based on the BU performing fronthaul recovery between the radio unit and the baseband unit of ZHANG et al, the baseband unit can be configured to transit reference signals to the UE (one or more UE) to re-established the lost connection with the base station.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al PG PUB 2019/0181969 in view of JEON et al PG PUB 2023/0125913 as applied to Claim 58 above and further in view of Amirijoo et al PG PUB 2013/0115959.
Re Claim 62, ZHANG et al in view of JEON et al fails to explicitly teach “…a control message prior to a planned loss of connectivity with the baseband unit”. However, Amirijoo et al teaches a source eNB indicating a HO request (a control message) [0042] to reduce load in the serving eNB [0044] for a planned cell outage [0152]. By combining the teachings, prior to the planned cell outage, the UE can receive the HO request to handover to another BS to avoid connection with the barred cell for connection reliability. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to handover to a neighboring cell during the planned cell outage period. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 63, 65, 68-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al PG PUB 2019/0181969 in view of JEON et al PG PUB 2023/0125913 and Amirijoo et al PG PUB 2013/0115959 as applied to Claim 62 above and further in view of Wang et al PG PUB 2013/02608015.
Re Claim 63, ZHANG et al in view of JEON et al and Amirijoo et al teaches based on the planned cell outage, the source base station can transmit the HO requests to the respective mobiles to reduce load for the planned cell outage. The planned cell outage is associated with a time period to start the outage timer. ZHANG et al in view of JEON et al and Amirijoo et al fails to explicitly teach "generating the reference signal until the outage timer expires." However, Wang et al teaches during a planned eNB outage, the eNB would reduce Reference Signal Power to a low level to encourage outgoing HOs to neighboring cells [0031]. By combining the teachings, the base station in ZHANG et al can reduce the reference signal power to encourage handover during the planned cell outage period. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have reduced the reference signal power to encourage handover operating during the planned cell outage period. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 68, JEON et al teaches fronthaul failure can be detected (the temporary loss of connectivity) between the radio unit and baseband unit of ZHANG et al. In view of Amirijoo et al, based on the fronthaul failure may require a scheduled maintenance or planned outage period (a controlled outage). In view of WANG et al, based on the planned outage, the reference signals can be transmitted at reduce power to induce handover operation to the UE(s) in the vicinity of the barred base station.
Re Claim 69, WANG et al teaches triggering the reduced power reference transmission during the planned outage period of Amirijoo et al [0143]. The planned outage can include cell maintenance or restart/configuration for software upgrade [0152]. The planned outage is configured by a O&M node [0108]. The O&M node would have configured the barred base station by sending a notification of the planned outage (a control outage notification) to the radio unit of ZHANG et al.
Re Claim 70, the O&M node of Amirijoo et al configuring the barred base station the planned outage which is associated with a length of the controlled outage period.
Re Claim 71, JEON et al teaches the DU detecting the fronthaul failure which drops can drop the connection between the base station and UE of ZHANG et al and switches from an active to inactive state. In view of Amirijoo et al, responsive to the fronthaul failure, this may require cell maintenance and planned outage (a need for a controlled outage).
Re Claim 72, JEON et al teaches detecting the loss of connectivity with the radio unit of ZHANG et al.
Re Claim 73, JEON et al teaches switching from an active state to a detached state responsive to the fronthaul failure.
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al PG PUB 2019/0181969 in view of JEON et al PG PUB 2023/0125913 as applied to Claim 58 above and further in view of Eyuboglu et al PG PUB 2014/0219267.
Re Claim 64, ZHANG et al in view of JEON et al fails to explicitly teach “storing PRACH signals in a PRACH buffer”. However, Eyuboglu et al teaches PRACH packets are stored in a PRACH buffer separate from UL buffer to improve PRACH response time [0288]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to improve the PRACH response time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al PG PUB 2019/0181969 in view of JEON et al PG PUB 2023/0125913 as applied to Claim 58 above and further in view of Khay-Ibbat et al PG PUB 2016/0262094.
Re Claim 66, ZHANG et al in view of JEON et al fails to "switching from a active state to an autonomous state responsive to the indication.". However, Khay-Ibbat et al teaches when link strength is low and/or the link has failed, switching to Autonomous mode [0049-0050]. By combining the teaching, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to switch to the autonomous mode to perform connection re-establishment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 58-75 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.
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 LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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 LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights