DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, 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 13-15, 20-22, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0357452 A1).
With respect to claims 13 and 28, Zeng et al. discloses a network node performing a method in a communications network and comprising: processing circuitry; and memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the network node to perform operations of the method (See the abstract, paragraphs 79-81 paragraphs 222-223, and Figure 7 of Zeng et al. for reference to a method of performing a handover by a network device that may be a base station, which is a network node of a communications network, wherein the network device comprises a processing element and a storage element, which is a memory, coupled to the processing element and storing a program executed by the processing element). Zeng et al. also discloses performing a random access, RA, procedure with a communication device as part of a dual active protocol stack, DAPS, handover, HO, of the communication device from a source cell to a target cell (See paragraph 82, paragraphs 84-85, and Figure 2 of Zeng et al. for reference to a target base station of a target cell performing a DAPS handover of a UE, which is a communication device, from a source cell to a target cell, wherein the handover includes performing a random access procedure between the UE and the target cell). Zeng et al. further discloses receiving a report including RA content associated with the DAPS HO (See paragraph 97-104 of Zeng et al. for reference to the UE sending a report to the target base station including random access report content associated with the DAPS handover).
With respect to claim 14, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the network node is a source network node associated with the source cell (See paragraph 97-104 of Zeng et al. for reference to the report being received from the UE by either the source base station or the target base station, such that the network node may be a source network node associated with a source cell).
With respect to claim 15, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the network node is a target network node associated with the target cell (See paragraph 97-104 of Zeng et al. for reference to the report being received from the UE by either the source base station or the target base station, such that the network node may be a target network node associated with a target cell).
With respect to claim 20, Zeng et al. discloses transmitting configuration information to the communication device instructing the communication device on what information to include in the RA content (See paragraph 108 and paragraphs 191-194 of Zeng et al. for reference to a base station providing configuration information including a configuration of information reported by the UE, wherein the reported information may include random access information).
With respect to claim 21, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the DAPS HO is unsuccessful, and wherein the report is a radio link failure, RLF, report (See paragraph 190 of Zeng et al. for reference to a DAPS HO being unsuccessful due to a RLF, wherein the report is a RLF report).
With respect to claim 22, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the DAPS HO is successful, and wherein the report is a successful handover report, SHR (See paragraph 101 of Zeng et al. for reference to the handover being successful and the report being a SHR).
With respect to claim 24, Zeng et al. discloses wherein receiving the report comprises receiving the report from at least one of: the communication device; and another network node in the communications network (See paragraphs 97-104 of Zeng et al. for reference to the UE sending the reports to the target base station via either the source base station or the target base station, such that target base station may receive the report from the UE or from another base station).
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 1-3, 5-10, 12, 16-18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0357452 A1) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0262565 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 25, Zeng et al. discloses a communication device performing a method in a communication device of a communications network and comprising: processing circuitry; and memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the network node to perform operations of the method (See the abstract, paragraphs 79-81 paragraphs 224-226, and Figure 8 of Zeng et al. for reference to a method of performing a handover by a UE, which is a communications device of a communications network, wherein the UE comprises a processing element and a storage element, which is a memory, coupled to the processing element and storing a program executed by the processing element). Zeng et al. also discloses the method comprising: performing a dual active protocol stack, DAPS, handover, HO, from a source cell associated with a first network node of the communications network to a target cell associated with a second network node of the communications network, which includes performing a second RA procedure with the target cell (See paragraphs 79-82, paragraphs 84-85, paragraphs 94-95, and Figures 1 and 2 of Zeng et al. for reference to performing a cell handover from a source cell associated with a source base station, which is a first network node, to a target cell associated with a target base station, which is a second network node, wherein the handover may be a DAPS handover, and wherein the handover includes initiating random access to the target cell). Zeng et al. further discloses determining RA content to include in a report associated with the DAPS HO; and transmitting the report to a third network node of the communications network toward a target cell (See paragraphs 97-104 and Figure 2 of Zeng et al. for reference to UE recording first and second reports including potential handover failure information and random access process information associated with the handover and sending the first and second report toward the target base station directly or via another base station, i.e. a third network node). Although Zeng et al. does disclose indicating a potential radio link failure, RLF, in the source cell during the handover (See paragraph 196 of Zeng et al.), and although it is well known in the art that a random access procedure may be initiated to recover from such a RLF, Zeng et al. does not specifically disclose the handover includes performing a first random access, RA, procedure with the source cell. However, Chang et al., in the field of communications, discloses a RLF occurring between a UE and a source base station during a DAPS handover procedure, wherein the RLF is based on an indication of a random access problem with the source base station (See paragraphs 84-87 and Figure 4 of Chang et al.). Performing a random access procedure with a source base station during a DAPS handover has the advantage of allowing recovery from a RLF with the source base station. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Chang et al., to combine performing a random access procedure with a source base station during a DAPS handover, as suggested by Chang et al., within the system and method of Zeng et al., with the motivation being to recover from a RLF with the source base station.
With respect to claim 2, Zeng et al. discloses wherein determining the RA content to include in the report comprises determining to include at least one of: information associated with the first RA procedure; and information associated with the second RA procedure (See paragraph 108 of Zeng et al. for reference to determining to include related information regarding the random access to the target cell within the first report).
With respect to claim 3, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the information associated with the first RA procedure comprises RA-InformationCommon pertaining to the first RA procedure, and wherein the information associated with the second RA procedure comprises RA- InformationCommon pertaining to the second RA procedure (See paragraph 108 of Zeng et al. for reference to the information regarding the random access including a RA-InformationCommon information element).
With respect to claim 5, Zeng et al. discloses wherein determining the RA content to include in the report comprises determining the RA content based on predetermined configuration information (See paragraph 108 and paragraphs 191-194 of Zeng et al. for reference to a base station providing configuration information, which is predetermined configuration information, including a configuration of information reported by the UE, wherein the reported information may include random access information).
With respect to claim 6, Zeng et al. discloses wherein determining the RA content to include in the report comprises determining the RA content based on configuration information received from a network node (See paragraph 108 and paragraphs 191-194 of Zeng et al. for reference to a base station providing configuration information including a configuration of information reported by the UE, wherein the reported information may include random access information).
With respect to claim 7, Zeng et al. discloses receiving a DAPS HO request from the first network node; and responsive to receiving the DAPS HO request, starting a T304 timer (See paragraphs 84-87 of Zeng et al. for reference to receiving a handover request indication from the source base station for a DAPS handover and starting a timer 1 in response to receiving a handover indication, wherein the timer 1 may be a T304 timer).
With respect to claim 8, Zeng et al. discloses responsive to determining a ratio between an amount of time since starting the T304 and a preconfigured value associated with the T304 timer exceeds a threshold value, determining the RA content based on the ratio exceeds the threshold value (See paragraph 87 and paragraph 108 of Zeng et al. for reference to determining a random access failure with the target cell that is reported by the UE based on a running duration of the timer 1 being greater than or equal to first and/or second thresholds, wherein the RA information is reported in the first report).
With respect to claim 9, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the DAPS HO is unsuccessful, and wherein the report is a radio link failure, RLF, report (See paragraph 190 of Zeng et al. for reference to a DAPS HO being unsuccessful due to a RLF, wherein the report is a RLF report).
With respect to claim 10, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the DAPS HO is successful, and wherein the report is a successful handover report, SHR (See paragraph 101 of Zeng et al. for reference to the handover being successful and the report being a SHR).
With respect to claim 12, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the third network node is at least one of: the first network node; and the second network node (See paragraphs 97-104 of Zeng et al. for reference to the UE sending the reports to either the source base station or the target base station, such that the source and target base stations may be the third network node).
With respect to claim 16, Zeng et al. discloses a second RA procedure between the communication device and the target cell (See paragraph 82 of Zeng et al. for reference to performing a random access between the UE and the target cell). Although Zeng et al. does disclose indicating a potential radio link failure, RLF, in the source cell during the handover (See paragraph 196 of Zeng et al.), and although it is well known in the art that a random access procedure may be initiated to recover from such a RLF, Zeng et al. does not specifically disclose the handover includes performing a first random access, RA, procedure between the communication device and the source cell. However, Chang et al., in the field of communications, discloses a RLF occurring between a UE and a source base station during a DAPS handover procedure, wherein the RLF is based on an indication of a random access problem with the source base station (See paragraphs 84-87 and Figure 4 of Chang et al.). Performing a random access procedure with a source base station during a DAPS handover has the advantage of allowing recovery from a RLF with the source base station. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Chang et al., to combine performing a random access procedure with a source base station during a DAPS handover, as suggested by Chang et al., within the system and method of Zeng et al., with the motivation being to recover from a RLF with the source base station.
With respect to claim 17, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the RA content includes at least one of: information associated with the first RA procedure; and information associated with the second RA procedure (See paragraph 108 of Zeng et al. for reference to the first report including related information regarding the random access to the target cell).
With respect to claim 18, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the information associated with the first RA procedure comprises RA-InformationCommon pertaining to the first RA procedure, and wherein the information associated with the second RA procedure comprises RA- InformationCommon pertaining to the second RA procedure (See paragraph 108 of Zeng et al. for reference to the information regarding the random access including a RA-InformationCommon information element).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. in view of Chang et al., and in further view of Kim (U.S. Publication US 2025/0063440 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Zeng et al. does not specifically disclose wherein transmitting the report comprises transmitting the report via an Information Request Response Procedure. However, Kim, in the field of communications, discloses a SHR report being transmitted by a UE to a cell based on a request message requesting the SHR information (See paragraphs 191-192 and Figure 11 of Kim). Transmission of a SHR report in response to a request for the report has the advantage of allowing the network to control when the report is received. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Kim, to combine performing transmission of a SHR report in response to a request for the report, as suggested by Kim, within the system and method of Zeng et al., with the motivation being to allow the network to control when the report is received.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. in view of Kim.
With respect to claim 23, Zeng et al. does not specifically disclose wherein receiving the report comprises receiving the report via an Information Request Response Procedure. However, Kim, in the field of communications, discloses a SHR report being transmitted by a UE to a cell based on a request message requesting the SHR information (See paragraphs 191-192 and Figure 11 of Kim). Transmission of a SHR report in response to a request for the report has the advantage of allowing the network to control when the report is received. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Kim, to combine performing transmission of a SHR report in response to a request for the report, as suggested by Kim, within the system and method of Zeng et al., with the motivation being to allow the network to control when the report is received.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 4 and 19 would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the first and second RA procedures being performed using first, second, and third frequency resources, as claimed, wherein the RA content includes a first, second, and third sets of information associated with the first, second, and third frequency resources respectively, as claimed. The closest prior art of record, MolavianJazi et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0191940 A1), teaches different sets of RA procedures may use different corresponding sets of time/frequency resources (See paragraph 154 of MolavianJazi et al.); however, does not disclose or render obvious each of the claimed first, second, and third frequency resources and RA report content including first, second, and third sets of information associated with the first, second, and third frequency resources respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights