DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This Office Action is response to the preliminary amendment filed on 06/14/24.
Claims 1-21 have been canceled.Claims 22-41 are pending.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 22 and 32 are objected to because the claims do not identify “L3” and “L1/2”.
Claim 25 is objected to because the claims do not identify “IDs” and “PCI”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balan et al. (U.S. 20210029600).
For claim 22, Balan et al. disclose an apparatus comprising:
means for detecting at least one of a mobility failure (at least [0030]-[0038]. Detecting that a radio link failure condition is met before the execution of the handover is triggered (block 240); and on the basis of the detecting, signaling, to the wireless network, information indicative of a cause of a handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 250).) and a respective successful handover (at least [0042]. The UE 100 may receive the CHO command from the network, as discussed above. If the second condition indicated in the command is met, in block 530, the HO execution timer may be started. In block 540, if no RLF is experienced or RLF condition is not met, the handover execution may continue by the UE connecting to the target cell.);
means for determining a type of the mobility failure, wherein the type of the mobility failure is determined in response to the detected mobility failure (at least [0030]-[0038]. Detecting that a radio link failure condition is met before the execution of the handover is triggered (block 240); and on the basis of the detecting, signaling, to the wireless network, information indicative of a cause of a handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 250).);
means for generating mobility failure information indicative of one or more parameters associated with the type of the mobility failure, wherein the mobility failure information is generated, at least in part, based on the determined type of the mobility failure (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration).); and
means for providing the mobility failure information and/or successful handover information comprising, at least in part, one or more parameters associated with the respective successful handover, wherein the mobility failure information and/or the successful handover information enable a network to determine whether a root cause associated with at least one of a respective mobility failure information and a respective successful handover information is a misconfiguration of one or more parameters controlling L3 handover procedures or L1/2 inter-cell mobility (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration). If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system. The RLF related timer may be, for example, T310 which is started when UE detects physical layer related problems, i.e. when UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indicators from lower layers (e.g. at T1).)
For claim 23, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 22, further comprising: means for receiving a handover command indicative of a L1/2 inter-cell change; and/or means for receiving a reconfiguration information indicative of one or more parameters controlling L1/2 mobility procedure; and/or means for receiving a handover command indicative of one or more parameters controlling L3 mobility procedure (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration). If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system. The RLF related timer may be, for example, T310 which is started when UE detects physical layer related problems, i.e. when UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indicators from lower layers, L1/2, (e.g. at T1).)
For claim 24, Balan et al. disclose apparatus of claim 22, wherein the apparatus further comprises for the determining of the type of the mobility failure and/or in case of a detected successful handover, one or more of: i) means for determining if the mobility failure occurred in a serving cell with no handover command received by the apparatus and prior to the detecting of the mobility failure; and/or ii) means for determining if the mobility failure occurred after a handover command is received by the apparatus; and/or iii) means for determining if a successful cell change occurred after receiving a handover configuration (at least [0034-[0038]. Determining, based on the measurement report, a need to perform a handover of the terminal device from a source cell to a target cell (block 320); causing a transmission of a conditional handover command to the terminal device, the conditional handover command indicating a second condition for triggering execution of the handover from the source cell to the target cell (block 330); acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340).)
For claim 25, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 24, wherein in case type i) is determined, the generated mobility failure information comprises, at least in part, one or more of the following: i.a) an indication whether the apparatus was configured with one or more parameters for L1/2 inter-cell mobility; i.b) one or more physical cell IDs, PCI, of one or more target cells for L1/2 inter-cell mobility; i.c) one or more pieces of beam measurement information for the serving cell; i.d) an indication whether a conditional handover (CHO), is or was configured in addition to L1/2 inter-cell mobility; ie) one or more L1 measurements for a serving cell and for one or more prepared target cells, if any, that are prepared for L1/2 inter-cell mobility on part of the apparatus (at least [0029] and [0043]. Upon receiving the handover command, the UE may not immediately try to access the target cell. Instead, the UE may monitor if a condition is fulfilled (e.g. CHO condition or Event 2) and only then attempt to access the target cell. This condition could be for example that the signal strength of the target cell is above a given threshold. For example, the condition may need to be true for a given TTT in order to trigger the handover execution. The RLF related timer may be triggered at time instant T1. If RLF related timer is not used, the RLF related condition may be, for example, detection that RLF has happen (e.g. no connection to source cell and hence the UE 100 may enter idle mode). The RLF related timer may be, for example, T310 which is started when UE detects physical layer related problems, i.e. when UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indicators from lower layers (e.g. at T1). The RLF related timer may expire at T4, i.e. the duration of the RLF related timer may be indicate with arrow 608.)
For claim 26, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 24, wherein in case type ii) is determined, the generated mobility failure information comprises, at least in part, one or more of the following: ii.a) an indication whether a handover command is or was triggered by a L1/2- or a L3-mobility procedure; and ii.b) an indication about a time duration between the reception of handover command triggering L1 inter-cell mobility execution until the detection of the mobility failure. (at least Fig. 6 and [0042]-[0045]. The radio link failure related timer (e.g. T310) is started before acquiring the conditional handover command over a control plane. I.e. at that time the control plane communication was still possible. The T310 timer may be started on the UE side early enough so that the Control Plane (C-Plane) communication is still possible and thus UE is able to receive the CHO command (block 630). It may be even more likely that such a situation is beneficial in 5G due to the introduction of in-sync/out-of-sync Block Error Rate (BLER) threshold pairs for RLF detection.)
For claim 27, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 24, wherein in case type iii) is determined, the successful handover information comprises, at least in part, one or more of the following: iii.a) an indication whether a handover command is or was triggered by a L1/2- or a L3-mobility procedure; and iii.b) an indication about a time duration between a reception of a reconfiguration information for L1/2 inter-cell mobility or the start of L1 beam measurement reporting until a reception of the handover command triggering L1/2 inter-cell mobility execution (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration). If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system.)
For claim 28, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 22, further comprising: means for starting a timer, wherein the timer is started in response to receiving a handover command, or wherein the timer is started upon reception of a reconfiguration information, or wherein the timer is started upon providing of beam measurement information, and means for stopping the timer, wherein the timer is stopped upon detecting of the mobility failure, or wherein the timer is stopped in response to receiving a handover command after the reception of the reconfiguration information (at least [0031]. Upon detecting that a second condition, associated with the conditional handover command, is met, starting a handover execution timer for triggering execution of a handover from a source cell to a target cell (block 230); detecting that a radio link failure condition is met before the execution of the handover is triggered (block 240); and on the basis of the detecting, signaling, to the wireless network, information indicative of a cause of a handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 250).)
For claim 29, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 28, wherein the mobility failure information or the successful handover information comprises a duration of the timer (at least [0057]-[0058]. The network, such as the network node 104, may determine whether the first time period 602 is equal and/or greater than the HO execution timer duration 606 (e.g. T4−T2>TTT of Event 2). If yes, the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured (block 776). For example, if T4−T2 is larger than TTT, this may mean that if TTT had been started earlier, there would have no problem. Hence, the condition for triggering TTT may be wrong.)
For claim 30, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the mobility failure information is part of a radio link failure report message provided by the apparatus, and/or wherein the successful handover information is part of a successful handover report message (at least [0030]-[0038]. Detecting that a radio link failure condition is met before the execution of the handover is triggered (block 240); and on the basis of the detecting, signaling, to the wireless network, information indicative of a cause of a handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 250).)
For claim 31, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the apparatus is a user equipment, or a part of a user equipment (at least [0016]. The user device, such as user devices 100 and 102 (also called UE, user equipment, user terminal, terminal device, etc.) illustrates one type of an apparatus to which resources on the air interface are allocated and assigned.)
For claim 32, Balan et al. disclose an apparatus comprising:
means for being provided with at least one of one or more pieces of mobility failure information indicative of one or more parameters associated with a type of a mobility failure (at least [0030]-[0038]. Detecting that a radio link failure condition is met before the execution of the handover is triggered (block 240); and on the basis of the detecting, signaling, to the wireless network, information indicative of a cause of a handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 250).), and one or more pieces of successful handover information comprising, at least in part, one or more parameters associated with a respective successful handover (at least [0042]. The UE 100 may receive the CHO command from the network, as discussed above. If the second condition indicated in the command is met, in block 530, the HO execution timer may be started. In block 540, if no RLF is experienced or RLF condition is not met, the handover execution may continue by the UE connecting to the target cell.);
wherein at least one of a respective mobility failure information and/or a respective successful handover information enable the apparatus to determine whether a root cause associated with at least one of a respective mobility failure information and a respective successful handover information is a misconfiguration of one or more parameters controlling L3 handover procedures or L1/2 inter-cell mobility (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration).);
means for determining whether a cause associated with at least one of a respective mobility failure information and a respective successful handover information is a misconfiguration of one or more parameters controlling L3 handover procedures or L1/2-inter-cell mobility (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration). If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system. The RLF related timer may be, for example, T310 which is started when UE detects physical layer related problems, i.e. when UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indicators from lower layers (e.g. at T1).); and
means for determining adjusted one or more parameters to be used for an upcoming L1/2-inter-cell or L3 handover procedure, wherein the adjusted one or more parameters are determined dependent upon the determined cause (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration). If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system. The RLF related timer may be, for example, T310 which is started when UE detects physical layer related problems, i.e. when UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indicators from lower layers (e.g. at T1).)
For claim 33, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the mobility failure occurred in association with an inter-cell handover procedure (at least [0028]-[0029]. In wireless networks, such as cellular networks, handover mechanism is responsible for assuring the mobility of the users. As the user is moving out of the coverage of the serving cell it may be switched to a different cell (i.e. handover of a terminal device from a source cell to a target cell).)
For claim 34, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the misconfiguration is related to: a misconfiguration of one or more parameters controlling L3 handover, or a misconfiguration of one or more parameters controlling L1/2 inter-cell mobility (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration). If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system. The RLF related timer may be, for example, T310 which is started when UE detects physical layer related problems, i.e. when UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indicators from lower layers (e.g. at T1).)
For claim 35, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the mobility failure occurred in association with a baseline handover (BHO), BHO failure, conditional handover (CHO), CHO failure, or a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover or DAPS failure (at least [0028]-[0029]. So called conditional handover (CHO) may be used to enhance the BHO. CHO is a new procedure introduced in the 5G. In CHO, the preparation of the handover may be similar to the BHO procedure. However, upon receiving the handover command, the UE may not immediately try to access the target cell. Instead, the UE may monitor if a condition is fulfilled (e.g. CHO condition or Event 2) and only then attempt to access the target cell. This condition could be for example that the signal strength of the target cell is above a given threshold. For example, the condition may need to be true for a given TTT in order to trigger the handover execution.)
For claim 36, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the one or more adjusted parameters are determined in response to the cause being a misconfiguration of one or more parameters controlling L1/2 inter-cell mobility (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration). If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system. The RLF related timer may be, for example, T310 which is started when UE detects physical layer related problems, i.e. when UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indicators from lower layers (e.g. at T1).)
For claim 37, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the one or more adjusted parameters are determined such that a controlling of L1/2 inter-cell mobility is optimized (at least [0030]. it is expected that CHO as well will benefit from the introduction of mobility robustness optimization (MRO) mechanisms. More precisely, methods of detecting and reporting too late CHO, too early CHO or CHO to wrong cell may be beneficial to be introduced. Such mechanisms may help to have the CHO correctly parametrized in order to avoid/reduce RLFs, handover failures and ping-pongs, and also that resources are not wasted (both signaling and radio in target cell). Hence, it may be beneficial to provide solutions which enable detecting which misconfiguration of the CHO leads or led to handover failure. Based on this information, the network may configure parameter(s) of the CHO, thus reducing the failed handovers, and thus improving the user service.)
For claim 38, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the one or more pieces of mobility failure information are part of one or more radio link failure report messages, and/or wherein the one or more pieces of successful handover information are part of one or more successful handover report messages (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. The UE 100 may detect that the second condition is met and based on the detection, trigger, in block 422, the handover execution timer. After certain time period (e.g. TTT), the CHO may be executed if the second condition is still true at the expiry of the handover execution timer. It is noted that other type of timers may be used, but one example may be the TTT. For example, the handover execution timer may be referred to as Event 2 TTT or TTT of Event 2. However, in this specific example, the handover execution timer has not yet expired when the UE 100 detects that the RLF condition is true (block 240). Process may then continue to block 250 in which indication to the source cell 420 and/or to the target cell 404 is transmitted by the UE 100 about the RLF condition.)
For claim 39, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the apparatus is a network node providing a serving cell to at least one user equipment, an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) element, or a central unit, or a part thereof (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system.)
For claim 40, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: means for forwarding the one or more pieces of mobility failure information and/or the one or more successful handover information to one or more network entities (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. Acquiring, from the terminal device, information regarding a conditional handover failure (block 340); determining, based on the acquired information, a cause of the conditional handover failure to be either misconfigured first condition or misconfigured second condition (block 345); and controlling at least one of the first condition, the second condition based on the received information (block 350). The information indicative of the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. transmitted in block 250) may be referred to as handover failure information 700 or conditional handover failure information. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration). If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system. The RLF related timer may be, for example, T310 which is started when UE detects physical layer related problems, i.e. when UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indicators from lower layers (e.g. at T1).)
For claim 41, Balan et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: means for providing the determined adjusted one or more parameters (at least [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0043], [0051]-[0058], [0060] and [0068]. The information 700 comprises timing information 710, 720, 730, 606 indicating the cause of the conditional handover failure (i.e. Event 1 or Event 2 condition/parameter misconfiguration). If the network may determine that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is/was misconfigured. it may mean that the second condition (i.e. the Event 2) is triggered too late and should have been triggered earlier. Hence, the network may continue to adjust the second condition parameters so that the Event 2 is triggered earlier in the system. The RLF related timer may be, for example, T310 which is started when UE detects physical layer related problems, i.e. when UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indicators from lower layers (e.g. at T1).)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAI PHUONG whose telephone number is 571-272-7896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7687.
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).
/DAI PHUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights