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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on July 13, 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5,7,14,17,18,20-21 have been amended.
Claims 8-10 have been cancelled.
Claims 22-23 have been added.
Claims 1-7,11-23 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed on July 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7,11-21 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsai et al. (US Application 2021/0144762, hereinafter Tsai) which discloses determine whether or not to transfer the at least one of the first information and/or the second information to the second SN for the second SN to perform a SCG failure type detection([0049]-[0051], which recites a UE detects consistent LBT failure on an UL BWP (of a serving cell), the UE may take actions as specified in TS 38.321 to deal with the consistent LBT failure. The detection of consistent LBT failure may be based on all UL transmissions in the UL BWP. When consistent LBT failure is detected on the SCell(s), the UE may report the occurrence of the consistent LBT failure to the corresponding gNB (e.g., MN for MCG, SN for SCG). When consistent LBT failure is detected on a SpCell (e.g., PCell and/or PSCell), the UE may switch to another UL BWP having configured RACH resources on that cell and initiate an RA procedure (on that cell). When multiple UL BWPs are available for BWP switching, the selection of the target UL BWP may depend on UE implementation. In addition, if consistent LBT failure is detected on a PSCell, the UE may switch the active BWP, declare the occurrence of SCG RLF (e.g., determine that SCG RLF happens), and inform the MN of the consistent LBT failure. If the UL LBT failure is detected on a PCell, the UE may perform BWP switching and declare the occurrence of RLF (e.g., determine that RLF happens)).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7,11-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US Application 2021/0321314, hereinafter Ozturk) in view of Tsai et al. (US Application 2021/0144762, hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 1, Ozturk discloses a master node for wireless communication(Figs. 1,2, 9) , comprising:
at least one memory(242); and
at least one processor(240) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the master node([0086]-[0089]) to:
receive at least one of first information related to downlink (DL) listen before talk (LBT) failure from a first secondary node (SN), and/or second information related to uplink (UL) LBT failure associated with secondary cell group (SCG) failure from one of a user equipment (UE), a third node, or a second SN([0127]-[0134], which recites UE 30 detects consistent LBT failures of both uplink and downlink LBT procedures over the BWP configured for SCell 92. When consistent uplink LBT failures are detected on an SCell(s), such as SCell 92, UE 30 reports this to a corresponding node (e.g., a master node (MN) for the MCG, a secondary node (SN) for the SCG) via a medium access control—control element (MAC CE): The LBT failure report may be sent on a different serving cell than where the failures were detected, SCell 92. For example, after detecting the consistent LBT failures at 900).
Ozturk does not explicitly disclose determine whether or not to transfer the at least one of the first information and/or the second information to the second SN for the second SN to perform a SCG failure type detection.
However, Tsai teaches determine whether or not to transfer the at least one of the first information and/or the second information to the second SN for the second SN to perform a SCG failure type detection([0049]-[0051], which recites a UE detects consistent LBT failure on an UL BWP (of a serving cell), the UE may take actions as specified in TS 38.321 to deal with the consistent LBT failure. The detection of consistent LBT failure may be based on all UL transmissions in the UL BWP. When consistent LBT failure is detected on the SCell(s), the UE may report the occurrence of the consistent LBT failure to the corresponding gNB (e.g., MN for MCG, SN for SCG). When consistent LBT failure is detected on a SpCell (e.g., PCell and/or PSCell), the UE may switch to another UL BWP having configured RACH resources on that cell and initiate an RA procedure (on that cell). When multiple UL BWPs are available for BWP switching, the selection of the target UL BWP may depend on UE implementation. In addition, if consistent LBT failure is detected on a PSCell, the UE may switch the active BWP, declare the occurrence of SCG RLF (e.g., determine that SCG RLF happens), and inform the MN of the consistent LBT failure. If the UL LBT failure is detected on a PCell, the UE may perform BWP switching and declare the occurrence of RLF (e.g., determine that RLF happens)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Tsai with the teaching of Ozturk by using the above features such as determine whether or not to transfer the at least one of the first information and/or the second information to the second SN for the second SN to perform a SCG failure type detection as taught by Tsai for the purpose of performing Listen Before Talk (LBT) failure detection and recovery(Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Ozturk discloses a first secondary node (SN) for wireless communication(Figs. 1,2, 9), comprising:
at least one memory(242); and at least one processor (240) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause ([0086]-[0089]) the first SN to:
determine first information related to downlink (DL) listen before talk (LBT) failure([0127]-[0134], which recites UE 30 detects consistent LBT failures of both uplink and downlink LBT procedures over the BWP configured for SCell 92. When consistent uplink LBT failures are detected on an SCell(s), such as SCell 92, UE 30 reports this to a corresponding node (e.g., a master node (MN) for the MCG, a secondary node (SN) for the SCG) via a medium access control—control element (MAC CE): The LBT failure report may be sent on a different serving cell than where the failures were detected, SCell 92. For example, after detecting the consistent LBT failures at 900); and transmit the first information to a master node([0127]-[0134], which recites UE 30 detects consistent LBT failures of both uplink and downlink LBT procedures over the BWP configured for SCell 92. When consistent uplink LBT failures are detected on an SCell(s), such as SCell 92, UE 30 reports this to a corresponding node (e.g., a master node (MN) for the MCG, a secondary node (SN) for the SCG) via a medium access control—control element (MAC CE): The LBT failure report may be sent on a different serving cell than where the failures were detected, SCell 92. For example, after detecting the consistent LBT failures at 900. UE 30 prepares the LBT failure report in a MAC CE. Where PSCell 90-PS and/or SCell 91 are the corresponding nodes, UE 30 would transmit the LBT failure report is transmitted to PSCell 90-PS at 904 and/or to SCell 91 at 905. However, where no resources are available to transmit the LBT failure report, UE 30 may transmit a scheduling request (SR) at 901 to PCell 90-P, when PCell 90-P is the corresponding node).
Regarding claims 16,19, Ozturk discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication(Figs. 1,2, 9,10), comprising:
at least one memory(282); and at least one processor (280) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause ([0093]) the UE to:
receive one or more triggering conditions associated with new radio unlicensed (NR-U) ([0060],[00127], which recites UE 30 is provided with dual connectivity connections between a special cell (SpCell) 90 of the master cell group (MCG), including either or both of a primary cell (PCell) 90-P of a primary cell group (PCG) and a primary-secondary cell (PSCell) 90-PS of a secondary cell group (SCG), which is an operationally primary cell that is within an unlicensed secondary cell group. UE 30 is also provided connections via a first secondary cell group (CSG1) with SCell 91 and a second CSG (CSG2) with SCell 92)for a successful primary secondary cell (PSCell) change report([0127]-[0134], which recites UE 30 detects consistent LBT failures of both uplink and downlink LBT procedures over the BWP configured for SCell 92. When consistent uplink LBT failures are detected on an SCell(s), such as SCell 92, UE 30 reports this to a corresponding node (e.g., a master node (MN) for the MCG, a secondary node (SN) for the SCG) via a medium access control—control element (MAC CE): The LBT failure report may be sent on a different serving cell than where the failures were detected, SCell 92. For example, after detecting the consistent LBT failures at 900. UE 30 prepares the LBT failure report in a MAC CE. Where PSCell 90-PS and/or SCell 91 are the corresponding nodes, UE 30 would transmit the LBT failure report is transmitted to PSCell 90-PS at 904 and/or to SCell 91 at 905. However, where no resources are available to transmit the LBT failure report, UE 30 may transmit a scheduling request (SR) at 901 to PCell 90-P, when PCell 90-P is the corresponding node); and generate a successful PSCell change report when at least one triggering condition of the one or more triggering conditions is fulfilled([0127]-[0134], which recites UE 30 detects consistent LBT failures of both uplink and downlink LBT procedures over the BWP configured for SCell 92. When consistent uplink LBT failures are detected on an SCell(s), such as SCell 92, UE 30 reports this to a corresponding node (e.g., a master node (MN) for the MCG, a secondary node (SN) for the SCG) via a medium access control—control element (MAC CE): The LBT failure report may be sent on a different serving cell than where the failures were detected, SCell 92. For example, after detecting the consistent LBT failures at 900. UE 30 prepares the LBT failure report in a MAC CE. Where PSCell 90-PS and/or SCell 91 are the corresponding nodes, UE 30 would transmit the LBT failure report is transmitted to PSCell 90-PS at 904 and/or to SCell 91 at 905. However, where no resources are available to transmit the LBT failure report, UE 30 may transmit a scheduling request (SR) at 901 to PCell 90-P, when PCell 90-P is the corresponding node).
Regarding claim 2, Ozturk discloses the master node of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the master node to: transfer the first information and/or the second information to the second SN in a case that a failure occurred in primary secondary cell (PSCell) change procedure or conditional PSCell Addition/Change (CPAC) procedure initiated by the second SN([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 3, Ozturk discloses the master node of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the master node to: perform the SCG failure type detection based on the first information and/or the second information in a case that a failure occurred in primary secondary cell (PSCell) change procedure or conditional PSCell Addition/Change (CPAC) procedure initiated by the master node([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 4, Ozturk discloses the master node of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the master node to: transmit a first message to the first SN to inform that SCG failure occurred due to LBT failure([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 5, Ozturk discloses the master node of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the master node to: receive a second message from the first SN regarding which node initiates a primary secondary cell (PSCell) change procedure or a conditional PSCell Addition/Change (CPAC) procedure; and transmit a first response to the first SN indicating a SN initiates the PSCell change procedure or the CPAC procedure, wherein the first information is received from the first SN after transmitting the first response; or a second response to the first SN indicating that the master node initiates the PSCell change procedure or the CPAC procedure([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 6, Ozturk discloses the master node of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the master node to: receive a second message from the first SN indicating that LBT related configurations associated with SCG have been modified([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 7, Ozturk discloses the master node of claim 1, wherein the first information includes at least one: a first indication indicating that primary secondary cell (PSCell) change failure or conditional PSCell Addition/Change (CPAC) failure occurred due to LBT failure at the first SN, or due to one or more new radio unlicensed (NR-U) channels in a target PSCell managed by the first SN are unavailable; a PSCell change or CPAC failure type; a second indication indicating that LBT related configurations associated with SCG are to be modified; information associated with one or more NR-U channels which are unavailable; information associated with LBT events in the target PSCell; a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) of the target PSCell when LBT fails or when the one or more NR-U channels in the target PSCell are unavailable; or a channel occupancy of the target PSCell when LBT fails or when the NR-U channels in target PSCell are unavailable([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 12, Ozturk discloses the first SN of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first SN to at least one of: modify LBT related configurations associated with secondary cell group (SCG); or transmit a first message to the master node indicating that the LBT related configurations associated with SCG of the first SN are modified([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 13, Ozturk discloses the first SN of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first SN to: receive a second message indicating that secondary cell group (SCG) failure occurred due to LBT failure([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 14, Ozturk discloses the first SN of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first SN to: transmit a third message to the master node regarding which node initiates a primary secondary cell (PSCell) change procedure or a conditional PSCell Addition/Change (CPAC) procedure; and receive a first response indicating that a second SN initiates the PSCell change procedure or the CPAC procedure, wherein the first information is transmitted to the master node after receiving the first response; or a second response indicating that the master node initiates the PSCell change procedure or the CPAC procedure([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 15, Ozturk discloses the first SN of claim 11, wherein the first information includes at least one of: a first indication indicating that primary secondary cell (PSCell) change failure or conditional PSCell Addition/Change (CPAC) failure occurred due to LBT failure at the first SN, or due to one or more new radio unlicensed (NR-U) channels in a target PSCell managed by the first SN are unavailable; a PSCell change or CPAC failure type; a second indication indicating that LBT related configurations associated with SCG are to be modified; information associated with one or more NR-U channels which are unavailable; information associated with LBT events in the target PSCell; a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) of the target PSCell when LBT fails or when the one or more NR-U channels in the target PSCell are unavailable; or a channel occupancy of the target PSCell when LBT fails or when the NR-U channels in target PSCell are unavailable([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 17, Ozturk discloses the UE of claim 16, wherein the one or more triggering conditions include at least one of: listen before talk (LBT) failure occurs in at least one uplink (UL) bandwidth part (BWP) on a source primary cell (PCell); LBT failure occurs in at least one UL BWP on a source PSCell; LBT failure occurs in at least one UL BWP on a target PSCell; a first number of source PCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs is higher than a first threshold; a second number of source PSCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs is higher than a second threshold; a third number of target PSCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs is higher than a third threshold; a fourth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in a media access control (MAC) per BWP for the source PCell is higher than a fourth threshold; a fifth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in the MAC per BWP for the source PSCell is higher than a fifth threshold; a sixth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in the MAC per BWP for the target PSCell is higher than a sixth threshold; a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) of the source PCell is higher than a seventh threshold; a RSSI of the source PSCell is higher than an eighth threshold; a RSSI of the target PSCell is higher than a ninth threshold; a channel occupancy of the source PCell is higher than a tenth threshold; a channel occupancy of the source PSCell is higher than an eleventh threshold; a channel occupancy of the target PSCell is higher than a twelfth threshold([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 18, Ozturk discloses the UE of claim 16, wherein the successful PSCell change report includes at least one of: one or more uplink (UL) bandwidth part (BWP) identifiers (IDs) on a source primary cell (PCell) where listen before talk (LBT) failure occurs; one or more UL BWP IDs on a source PSCell where LBT failure occurs; one or more UL BWP IDs on a target PSCell where LBT failure occurs; a first number of source PCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs; a second number of source PSCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs; a third number of target PSCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs a fourth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in a media access control (MAC) for the source PCell for each BWP; a fifth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in the MAC for the source PSCell for each BWP; a sixth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in the MAC for the target PSCell for each BWP; a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) of the source PCell; a RSSI of the source PSCell; a RSSI of the target PSCell; a channel occupancy of the source PCell; a channel occupancy of the source PSCell; or a channel occupancy of the target PSCell([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 20, Ozturk discloses the processor of claim 19, wherein the one or more triggering conditions include at least one of: listen before talk (LBT) failure occurs in at least one uplink (UL) bandwidth part (BWP) on a source primary cell (PCell); LBT failure occurs in at least one UL BWP on a source PSCell; LBT failure occurs in at least one UL BWP on a target PSCell; a first number of source PCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs is higher than a first threshold; a second number of source PSCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs is higher than a second threshold; a third number of target PSCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs is higher than a third threshold; a fourth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in a media access control (MAC) per BWP for the source PCell is higher than a fourth threshold; a fifth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in the MAC per BWP for the source PSCell is higher than a fifth threshold; a sixth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in the MAC per BWP for the target PSCell is higher than a sixth threshold; a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) of the source PCell is higher than a seventh threshold; a RSSI of the source PSCell is higher than an eighth threshold; a RSSI of the target PSCell is higher than a ninth threshold; a channel occupancy of the source PCell is higher than a tenth threshold; a channel occupancy of the source PSCell is higher than an eleventh threshold; a channel occupancy of the target PSCell is higher than a twelfth threshold([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 21, Ozturk discloses the processor of claim 19, wherein the successful PSCell change report includes at least one of: one or more uplink (UL) bandwidth part (BWP) identifiers (IDs) on a source primary cell (PCell) where listen before talk (LBT) failure occurs; one or more UL BWP IDs on a source PSCell where LBT failure occurs; one or more UL BWP IDs on a target PSCell where LBT failure occurs; a first number of source PCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs; a second number of source PSCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs; a third number of target PSCells that have UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs a fourth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in a media access control (MAC) for the source PCell for each BWP; a fifth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in the MAC for the source PSCell for each BWP; a sixth number of LBT failure indications received from physical layer in the MAC for the target PSCell for each BWP; a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) of the source PCell; a RSSI of the source PSCell; a RSSI of the target PSCell; a channel occupancy of the source PCell; a channel occupancy of the source PSCell; or a channel occupancy of the target PSCell([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 22, Ozturk discloses the master node of claim 1, wherein the second information includes at least one of: a third indication indicating that primary secondary cell (PSCell) change failure or conditional PSCell Addition/Change (CPAC) failure occurs due to LBT failure; a PSCell change or CPAC failure type; one or more UL Bandwidth Part (BWP) IDs on a target PSCell where LBT failure occurs; a number of target PSCell's UL BWPs where consistent LBT failure occurs; a number of LBT failures detected in a Media Access Control (MAC) entity for a target PSCell for each BWP; a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the target PSCell; or a channel occupancy of the target PSCell([0127]-[0134]).
Regarding claim 23, Ozturk discloses the master node of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the master node to: modify LBT related configurations associated with master cell group (MCG) ([0127]-[0134]).
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 DADY CHERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1207. The examiner can normally be reached M to T, 8 am to 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617. 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.
/DADY CHERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights