DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to an application filed on July 5th, 2024, and to the preliminary amendment filed on July 5th,2024, which is acknowledged and entered. By the preliminary amendment, claims 1-30 were cancelled; and claims 31-50 were newly added. Accordingly, claims 31-50 are currently pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Relevant Technical Information Submittal Requirement
Requirement — Overview
The applicant is required to submit copies of non-patent literature and relevant technical information as set forth below.
Basis for Requirement
35 U.S.C. § 131 provides:
The Director shall cause an examination to be made of the application and the alleged new invention; and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Director shall issue a patent therefor.
37 C.F.R. § 1.105(a) provides:
In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 371 (including a reissue application), in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example:
….
(iii) Related information: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign), by any of the inventors, that relates to the claimed invention.
(iv) Information used to draft application: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used to draft the application.
(v) Information used in invention process: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the invention process, such as by designing around or providing a solution to accomplish an invention result.
…
(viii) Technical information known to applicant. Technical information known to applicant concerning the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or concerning the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
Background
The applicant has stated in a publicly available European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI) record that WO2023136769A1, which is the published parent application of the present application, Application No. 18/726,847 (“the Application”) “may be or may become ESSENTIAL in relation to at least the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the attached IPR Information Statement Annex.”1
Necessity for this Requirement.
This Requirement is issued pursuant to the Director’s duty and authority to examine patent applications. See 35 U.S.C. § 131; 37 C.F.R. § 1.105(a). The ETSI record indicates the applicant likely possesses information relating to the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) that is necessary for a more complete understanding of the invention and its context. See MPEP § 704.11. Such information may include non-patent literature and technical materials (e.g., contribution papers or Tdocs) authored, generated, or submitted by the applicant or others that form the basis of, or resulted from, the claimed invention.
Applicant is Required to Submit:
Copies of any non-patent literature relating to the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the ETSI record for the Application, which satisfies any of the following criteria:
Authored by any of the inventors and related to the claimed invention,
Used to draft the present application, or
Used in the invention process (for example, used to design around prior art or to provide a solution that enabled the claimed invention); and
Any technical information known to the applicant relating to the ETSI Work Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the ETSI record for the Application, which concerns the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
Instructions to Applicant
A complete reply to this Requirement is a reply to each enumerated requirement for information giving either the information required or a statement that the information required to be submitted is unknown and/or is not readily available to the applicant. There is no requirement for the applicant to show that the required information was not, in fact, readily attainable, but the applicant is required to make a good faith attempt to obtain the information and to make a reasonable inquiry once the information is requested. See MPEP § 704.12(b).
This Requirement is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR §§ 1.134, 1.135 and 1.136 and is accorded the same period for reply as the action on the merits sent with this Requirement. See MPEP § 704.13 (third paragraph). EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136 (a).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 5, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 35, the phrase "e.g.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 31 and 49 recites the limitation "said determining" in line 10 (Claim 31) and in line 12 (Claim 49). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
There are at least two determining steps recited in a manner to be performed alternatively or concurrently, i.e., because of the use of the language “and/or.” It is unclear which determining the limitation “said determining” is referring to. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation “said determining” is construed to mean a) the determination of whether the device was operating in NTN cell or in terrestrial network cell; b) determination of whether the triggering event was due to the device mobility or the NTN cell mobility: or c) both a) and b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claims 40, 43, 47, 48 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yan et al. (US Patent Published Application US2024/0406830).
Regarding claim 40, Yan et al. discloses a method (Fig. 4), in a network node (See, ¶[0129], “The embodiments of FIG. 4 may be performed by a network node”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a wireless device, an indication that the wireless device has a report comprising information indicating whether a triggering event at the wireless device occurred (See, Fig. 4, #401; and ¶[0130]. A triggering event corresponding to one of “RLF;” “handover failure;” and “handover success.”) while the wireless device was operating in non-terrestrial network coverage (See, e.g., ¶[0046], “a CHO execution fails (a too early NTN CHO procedure or a CHO procedure to a wrong cell in NTN;” ¶[0047], “a source RLF occurs before a CHO execution is triggered (a too late NTN CHO procedure);” and ¶[0050], “a new trigger condition for a SHR in a NTN mobility procedure.”);
determining whether to retrieve the report from the wireless device (See, Fig. 4, #402; and ¶[0131]. The decision to retrieve the report must have been made in view of the request); and
retrieving the report from the wireless device, in response to said determining (See, Fig. 4, #402; and ¶[0131], “the network node transmits, to the UE, a request for the information stored in the UE.”).
Regarding claim 43, Yan et al. further discloses that retrieving the report comprises sending, to the wireless device, a request for the report (See, Fig. 4, #402; and ¶[0131], “the network node transmits, to the UE, a request for the information stored in the UE.”).
Regarding claim 47, Yan et al. further discloses that the method further comprises classifying a failure event for the wireless device based on the information (See, Fig. 4, #401; and ¶[0130], “an indicator which indicates that information is stored in the UE…. RLF related information, and/or handover failure related information;” and ¶s[0046]-[0049], “Case 1: a CHO execution fails (a too early NTN CHO procedure or a CHO procedure to a wrong cell in NTN);” “Case 2: a source RLF occurs before a CHO execution is triggered (a too late NTN CHO procedure);” “Case 3: a handover procedure for recovery fails after a failed CHO execution;” and “Case 4: a handover procedure fails, e.g., the UE fails to handover to the target cell (that is included in the traditional handover command) or a RLF occurs shortly in the target cell”).
Regarding claim 48, Yan et al. further discloses that said classifying is based on an indication, in the information, of when the triggering event occurred, with respect to an end of service time for the serving cell in which the triggering event occurred (See, Yan et al., ¶[0028], the handover reported timer (TimeConnFailure, which indicates the time elapsed since the last handover initialization until a connection failure) is very important for failure type detection in the MRO mechanism.;” and ¶s[0042]-[0044], “a SHR may include at least information of: …. An indication to indicate which triggering condition(s) for generating or logging the SHR were fulfilled, e.g., a flag for indicating timers T310, T304, and/or T312.”).
Regarding claim 50, Yan et al. discloses a network node (See, Fig. 1, #102; Fig. 2, #200; and ¶[0054], “The apparatus 200 may be a UE or a network node (e.g., a BS).”), comprising:
interface circuitry configured to communicate with one or more other nodes (Fig. 2, #202; and ¶[0102], “the transceiver 202”);
processing circuitry (Fig. 2, #204; and ¶[0102], “processor 204”), the processing circuitry being operatively coupled to the interface circuitry (See, Fig. 2, showing the processor 204 being coupled to transceiver 202) and configured to:
receive, from a wireless device, an indication that the wireless device has a report comprising information indicating whether a triggering event at the wireless device occurred (See, Fig. 4, #401; and ¶[0130]. A triggering event corresponding to one of “RLF;” “handover failure;” and “handover success.”) while the wireless device was operating in non-terrestrial network coverage (See, e.g., ¶[0046], “a CHO execution fails (a too early NTN CHO procedure or a CHO procedure to a wrong cell in NTN;” ¶[0047], “a source RLF occurs before a CHO execution is triggered (a too late NTN CHO procedure);” and ¶[0050], “a new trigger condition for a SHR in a NTN mobility procedure.”);
determine whether to retrieve the report from the wireless device (See, Fig. 4, #402; and ¶[0131]. The decision to retrieve the report must have been made in view of the request); and
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 31-39 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Patent Published Application US2023/0068504) in view of Yan et al.
Regarding 31, Kumar et al. teaches a method (See, Fig. 14), in a wireless device (See, e.g., Fig. 4, “UE 104”) operating in a wireless communication network (See, e.g., Fig. 4; and ¶[0054], “wireless communication network 400”), the method comprising:
detecting one of one or more pre-determined triggering events (See, e.g., Fig. 14, #1410, the UE detected a failure;” ¶[0202], and “the failure comprises a RLF; a CEF; or a HoF.” The predetermined triggering events correspond to, e.g., radio link failure, connection establishment failure or handover failure.);
responsive to the detected triggering event (See, ¶[0201], “the system receives, from the UE, a report that indicates the UE detected a failure”. That is, the UE generates a report in response to the detected failure),
determining whether the triggering event occurred while the wireless device was operating under non-terrestrial network coverage or under terrestrial network coverage (See, ¶[0202], “the report includes an indication of whether …a failed primary cell…is part of a TN or NTN by including a satellite identifier or a flag.”).
Kumar et al., while teaching reporting the occurrence of a failure, however, fails explicitly teach determining whether the triggering event was due to wireless device mobility or non-terrestrial network cell mobility; and saving, for reporting to the wireless communication network, information corresponding to said determining.
Yan et al. teaches determining whether the triggering event (See, e.g., Yan et al., ¶[0046], a CHO execution fails (a too early NTN CHO procedure;” and ¶[0047], “a source RLF…a too late NTN CHO”) was due to wireless device mobility or non-terrestrial network cell mobility (See, e.g., ¶[0160], “ the UE can log and/or report: (1) the distance between the UE and the source cell's reference location when a source RLF occurs (i.e., 18 km);” The distance indicates the relative mobility of a UE and a non-terrestrial network cell with respect to each other); and
saving, for reporting to the wireless communication network, information corresponding to said determining (See, Fig. 4, #401, :an indicator indicating that information is store in the UE…includes distance information…RLF…, handover failure;” ¶s[0142]-[0143], “the UE can at least log and/or report: (1) Distance related information when a handover procedure (i.e., CHO execution) fails;” and ¶[0153], “the UE indicates to the network node that it has logged and/or stored the above information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting various link failures taught by Kumar et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Yan et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Kumar et al. ¶[0030] and Yan et al. ¶[0045]).
Regarding claim 32, Kumar et al. in view of Yan et al. teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 31 as discussed above.
Yan et al. additionally teaches a method further comprising sending, to the wireless communication network, an indication of the availability of the information (See, Fig. 4, #401; and ¶[0153], “the UE indicates to the network node that it has logged and/or stored the above information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting various link failures taught by Kumar et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Yan et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Kumar et al. ¶[0030] and Yan et al. ¶[0045]).
Regarding claim 33, Kumar et al. in view of Yan et al. teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 32 as discussed above.
Yan et al. additionally teaches a that sending the indication of the availability of the information comprises sending an indication of whether the information is associated to an event (See, ¶[0144], “CHO execution fails,” i.e., a handover failure) occurring under non-terrestrial network coverage (See, ¶[0144], an indication which indicates whether the distance based CHO execution condition for the target cell is met, at least when the CHO execution fails;” and ¶[0153], “Based on the reported information from the UE, the network node can restrict or change the location based triggering condition and/or the radio link quality based triggering condition to avoid a too early handover procedure or a handover procedure to a wrong cell in NTN”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting various link failures taught by Kumar et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Yan et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Kumar et al. ¶[0030] and Yan et al. ¶[0045]).
Regarding claim 34, Kumar et al. in view of Yan et al. teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 31 as discussed above.
Yan et al. additionally teaches a method further comprising transmitting the information to the wireless communication network (See, Fig. 4, #403; and ¶[0153], “the UE sends the logged and/or stored information to the network, e.g., the UE sends UEinformationresponse message to transfer a RLF report that including the logged and/or stored information”), wherein said transmitting is in response to a request from the wireless communication network (See, Fig. 4, #402; and ¶[0153], “then the network request the UE to report the logged and/or stored information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting various link failures taught by Kumar et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Yan et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Kumar et al. ¶[0030] and Yan et al. ¶[0045]).
Regarding claim 35, Kumar et al. in view of Yan et al. teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 34 as discussed above.
Kumar et al. additionally teaches that said transmitting the information comprises transmitting the information as part of a self-organizing network report (See, e.g., ¶[0030], Such reports may include reports used for self-organizing networks (SON)”), e.g., a radio link failure (RLF) report (See, ¶[0063], “radio link failure (RLF) reporting”) or a random access (RA) report (See, ¶[0070], “random access (RA) reporting”).
Kumar et al., however, fails to teach transmitting a successful handover report (SHR).
Yan et al. teaches transmitting a successful handover report (SHR) (See, ¶[0050], “SHR in a NTN mobility”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting various link failures taught by Kumar et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Yan et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Kumar et al. ¶[0030] and Yan et al. ¶[0045]).
Regarding claim 36, Kumar et al. in view of Yan et al. teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 31 as discussed above.
Kumar et al. additionally teaches that the detected triggering event is a radio link failure (RLF) (See, e.g., ¶[0079], “upon RLF”…the UE may..”) or a handover failure (HOF) (See, e.g., ¶[0079], “upon...handover failure (HoF)”…the UE may..”).
Regarding claim 37, Kumar et al. in view of Yan et al. teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 31 as discussed above.
Kumar et al. additionally teaches that the information comprises one or more of any one or more of the following:
an indication of whether the serving cell in which the triggering event (See, ¶[0080], handover failure) occurred is a terrestrial or non-terrestrial cell (See, ¶[0066], “satellite identifier or a flag that differentiate it from a TN cell;” and ¶[0080], “the UE may provide an indication of whether certain cells involved in the handover (e.g., the sourcePCell, failPCell, ReestablishPCell, and/or ReconnectPCell) are part of a TN or NTN by including satellite identifier”);
an indication of a non-terrestrial network type for the serving cell in which the triggering event occurred (See, ¶[0080], “inclusion of the satellite identifier may indicate a corresponding cell is part of an NTN”);
an indication of a last previous serving cell of a different network type to which the wireless device, before connecting to the network of the type of the serving cell in which the triggering event occurred (See, ¶[0079], “upon RLF or handover failure (HoF), the UE may include both TN and NTN cell measurements (serving and neighboring cells), if the UE is configured to perform TN to NTN HO or NTN to TN HO…….of only NTN cells, in case of NTN-to-NTN HO”);
an indication of when the triggering event occurred (See, ¶[0087], “HoF”), with respect to a time interval for a time-based execution of conditional handover (See, ¶[0087], based CHO conditions or related parameters may include a time elapsed since the configured earliest time a CHO can be executed until HoF”…. “an indication whether the time range was sufficient for performing the CHO”);
an indication of whether the event occurred within a coverage zone for a non-terrestrial serving cell (See, Fig. 4, #110b; and ¶[0054], “non-terrestrial network entity 140 may serve the coverage area 110b in cases of a non-terrestrial network (NTN) ) in which the triggering event occurred;” and ¶[0080], “an indication of whether certain cells involved in the handover (e.g., the sourcePCell, failPCell, ReestablishPCell, and/or ReconnectPCell) are part of a TN or NTN by including satellite identifier.”);
Kumar et al., however, fails to teach explicitly that the information comprises one of:
an indication of a connectivity state for the wireless device when the triggering event occurred; and an indication of a distance from an edge of a non-terrestrial serving cell coverage zone.
Yan et al., teaches that the information comprises one of:
an indication of a connectivity state for the wireless device when the triggering event occurred (See, Yan et al.,¶[0075], “if a handover procedure of the UE is successfully completed, the information stored in the UE is the handover success related information. The handover success related information may be transmitted in a successful handover report (SHR))”. That is, the UE is in RRC_CONNECTED state.); and
an indication of a distance from an edge of a non-terrestrial serving cell coverage zone (See, e.g., ¶[0140], “the UE can also report: (1) the actual distance between the UE and the cell center of the serving cell;” and ¶[0181], “for a traditional handover procedure in NTN, a source node may decide whether to trigger a handover procedure and/or which is the target cell based …. a UE's location (e.g., the distance between the UE and the reference location (e.g., cell center) of the source cell or the serving cell.” The distance from an edge of a NTN serving cell can be obtained from the distance from the center of the cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting various link failures taught by Kumar et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Yan et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Kumar et al. ¶[0030] and Yan et al. ¶[0045]).
Regarding claim 38, Kumar et al. in view of Yan et al. teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 31 as discussed above.
Kumar et al. additionally teaches that the method comprises selecting a report type (See, ¶[0063], “radio link failure (RLF) reporting;” “RACH reporting;” and “connection establishment failure reporting”) for storing the information according to a trigger type for the trigger event, such that different reports are stored for respective different trigger types (See, e.g., ¶s[0079], “the UE may include RRM measurements of only NTN cells, in the case of NTN-to-NTN HO;” and [0081], “the UE may include a new cause code for an RLF for NTN.”).
Regarding claim 39, Kumar et al. in view of Yan et al. teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 31 as discussed above.
Kumar et al. additionally teaches that the method comprises selecting a report type for storing the information according to a type of cell, non-terrestrial cell or terrestrial cell (See, Fig. 6, “NTN Cell MEAS Report (Sat ID);” “TN Cell Meas Report” shown as separate messages; and ¶s[0065]-[0072], “the UE may implement filtering of NTN entries on SON/MDT report and only report NTN entries to the network.”), in which the wireless device was operating when the triggering event occurred (See, e.g., ¶[0079], “the UE may include RRM measurements of only NTN cells, in the case of NTN-to-NTN HO.”).
Regarding claim 49, Kumar et al. teaches a wireless device (Figs. 1 and 2, #104; and ¶[0041]), comprising:
radio front-end circuitry (See, Fig. 2; and ¶[0044], “antennas 252a-r (collectively 252), transceivers 254a-r (collectively 254)”); and
processing circuitry (See, Fig. 2, #280; and ¶[0045], “controller/processor 280”), the processing circuitry being operatively coupled to the radio front-end circuitry (See, Fig. 2, showing the controller/processor 280 operably coupled to transceivers 254 through transmit processor 264 and receive processor 258) and configured to:
detect one of one or more pre-determined triggering events (See, e.g., Fig. 14, #1410, the UE detected a failure;” ¶[0202], and “the failure comprises a RLF; a CEF; or a HoF.” The predetermined triggering events correspond to, e.g., radio link failure, connection establishment failure or handover failure.);
responsive to the detected triggering event (See, ¶[0201], “the system receives, from the UE, a report that indicates the UE detected a failure”. That is, the UE generates a report in response to the detected failure),
determine whether the triggering event occurred while the wireless device was operating under non-terrestrial network coverage or under terrestrial network coverage (See, ¶[0202], “the report includes an indication of whether …a failed primary cell…is part of a TN or NTN by including a satellite identifier or a flag.”).
Kumar et al., while teaching reporting the occurrence of a failure, however, fails explicitly teach determining whether the triggering event was due to wireless device mobility or non-terrestrial network cell mobility; and save, for reporting to the wireless communication network, information corresponding to said determining.
Yan et al. teaches determining whether the triggering event (See, e.g., Yan et al., ¶[0046], a CHO execution fails (a too early NTN CHO procedure;” and ¶[0047], “a source RLF…a too late NTN CHO”) was due to wireless device mobility or non-terrestrial network cell mobility (See, e.g., ¶[0160], “ the UE can log and/or report: (1) the distance between the UE and the source cell's reference location when a source RLF occurs (i.e., 18 km);” The distance indicates the relative mobility of a UE and a non-terrestrial network cell with respect to each other); and
save, for reporting to the wireless communication network, information corresponding to said determining (See, Fig. 4, #401, :an indicator indicating that information is store in the UE…includes distance information…RLF…, handover failure;” ¶s[0142]-[0143], “the UE can at least log and/or report: (1) Distance related information when a handover procedure (i.e., CHO execution) fails;” and ¶[0153], “the UE indicates to the network node that it has logged and/or stored the above information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting various link failures taught by Kumar et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Yan et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Kumar et al. ¶[0030] and Yan et al. ¶[0045]).
Claims 41, 42 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. in view of Kumar et al.
Regarding claim 41, Yan et al. discloses a method comprising all elements recited in claim 40 as discussed above.
Yan et al., however, fails to explicitly teach that the determining is based on whether the network node is a non-terrestrial or terrestrial network node.
Kumar et al. teaches a method of collecting and reporting of a network data for self-organizing network (SON) (See, e.g., Kumar et al., ¶[0030]), in which said determining is based on whether the network node is a non-terrestrial or terrestrial network node (See, e.g., ¶[0071], “the UE may maintain a separate availability indication for TN and NTN SON and logged MDT reports.”; ¶[0072], “via a UEInformationRequest, the NTN may choose to request the logged MDT and SON reports with only NTN entries.”; and ¶[0128], “receiving signaling indicating whether the UE is to send one or more of the data collection reports via a TN cell, via an NTN cell, or via both TN and NTN cells.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting taught by Yan et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Kumar et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Yan et al. ¶[0045]; and Kumar et al. ¶[0030]).
Regarding claim 42, Yan et al. discloses a method comprising all elements recited in claim 40 as discussed above.
Yan et al. additionally teaches the network node is of a non-terrestrial or terrestrial network type (See, ¶[0028], “a terrestrial network (TN);” and ¶[0029], “a non-terrestrial network (NTN)”).
Yan et al., however, fails to explicitly teach that said determining is based on whether the network node has a communication interface with a network of the other type from the network node.
Kumar et al. teaches that said determining is based on whether the network node has a communication interface with a network of the other type from the network node (See, ¶[0067], “the UE may be configured to send certain reports via the TN, when possible. Reports may be forwarded between TN and NTN cells, for example, via backhaul connections between.” That is, only when no backhaul connection is available, a NTN cell will request a report.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting taught by Yan et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Kumar et al. in order to reduce the usage of the limited bandwidth of a NTN link (See, e.g., Kumar et al. ¶[0067]).
Regarding claim 44, Yan et al. discloses a method comprising all elements recited in claim 40 as discussed above.
Yan et al., while teaching a time based CHO procedure (See, e.g., Yan et al., ¶[0034]), however, fails to explicitly teach that the method further comprises transmitting all or part of the report to another network node, and wherein the method comprises determining an identity of the other network node based on timestamp information in the report.
Kumar et al. teaches that the method further comprises transmitting all or part of the report to another network node (See, ¶[0067], “Reports may be forwarded between TN and NTN cells”), and wherein the method comprises determining an identity of the other network node based on timestamp information in the report (See, e.g., Kumar et al., ¶[0077], the UE may include a Satellite identifier or flag in the CGI report. Additionally (or as an alternative), the UE may include a timestamp;” ¶[0091], “an indication of whether the RACH report entry is for NTN or TN (e.g., in case this is not readily inferred from the content of RA report or Cell ID), PRACH resources related information for msg1/msgA, a timestamp and location information to indicate when and where UE performed RACH procedure.”; and ¶[0101], cell visibility time may be computed by the network based on the camped cell or neighboring cell measurements and a particular satellite identifier or frequency/PCID or the UE may include an indication whether the camped and neighboring cell (satellite identifier or frequency/PCID) is visible with timestamps.” The timestamp, thus, can be used to identify a cell, i.e., in which the triggering event occurred).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting taught by Yan et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Kumar et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Yan et al. ¶[0045]; and Kumar et al. ¶s[0030]; [0077]; and [0091]).
Regarding claim 45, Yan et al. in view of Kumar et al. teaches a method comprising all elements recited in claim 44 as discussed above.
Kumar et al. additionally teaches that the other network node is a network node controlling the cell in which the triggering event occurred (See, Kumar et al., ¶[0079], “upon RLF or handover failure (HoF), the UE may include both TN and NTN cell measurements (serving and neighboring cells),” emphasis added), or a network node controlling the cell in which the wireless device was operating prior to the triggering event occurring (See above ¶[0079]. The cell servicing the UE at the time of the triggering event would be the same serving cell just prior to such event.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting taught by Yan et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Kumar et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Yan et al. ¶[0045]; and Kumar et al. ¶[0030]).
Regarding claim 46, Yan et al. in view of Kumar et al. teaches a method comprising all elements recited in claim 44 as discussed above.
Kumar et al. additionally teaches that the report indicates that the wireless device was operating in a cell of a first type (terrestrial or non-terrestrial) (See, Kumar et al., ¶[0079], the UE may include both TN and NTN cell measurements (serving and neighboring cells), if the UE is configured to perform TN to NTN HO or NTN to TN HO.” For example, if, during a TN to NTN HO, a RLF may occur shortly after the handover to the target NTN cell. This is the Case 4 discussed by Yan et al. See, Yan et al., ¶[0130]) when the triggering event occurred (In this example, when the triggering event (i.e., RLF) occurs the serving cell would be a NTN cell, e.g., a first type.), and the other network node is identified in the report as the last network node operating a cell of the second type (terrestrial or non-terrestrial) in which the wireless device was operating prior to the triggering event occurring (In this example, the cell serving the UE prior to the triggering event, i.e., before the handover, would be a cell of the second type, i.e., a TN cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it would be necessary to modify the method of reporting taught by Yan et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Kumar et al. in order to enhance the self-organizing network (SON) mechanism for a wireless network (See, e.g., Yan et al. ¶[0045]; and Kumar et al. ¶[0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KI S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM - 5:30PM.
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 R 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.
/K.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2418 June 1, 2026
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 See Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson’s IPR Information Statement and IPR Licensing Declaration and IPR
Information Statement Annex, ISLD-202310-066, Pp. 1 & 2, Retrieved from the Internet<URL: https://ipr.etsi.org/IPRDetails.aspx?IPRD_ID=8045&IPRD_TYPE_ID=2&MODE=2&sessionkey=31346b> (Year: 2024). A copy of the ISLD-202310-066 is being provided herewith.
Prosecution Insights