DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 7 June 2024 and Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12 September 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5-11, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 3, Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”;
Regarding Claim 5:
Line 2 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”; and
Lines 3-4 — “a supplementary cell (SuC)” should read as “a
Regarding Claim 6, Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”;
Regarding Claim 7, Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”;
Regarding Claim 8:
Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”; and
Lines 5 and 8 — “quality associate with” should read as “quality associated with”;
Regarding Claim 9, Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”;
Regarding Claim 10, Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”;
Regarding Claim 11:
Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”; and
Lines 3-4 — “strength the target cell relative a measured” should read as “strength to a measured”;
Regarding Claim 13, Line 1 — “comprises at an” should read as “comprises
Regarding Claim 15, Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”;
Regarding Claim 16, Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”;
Regarding Claim 17:
Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”; and
Line 8 — “communicate UE context release the plurality of target cells” should read as “communicate a UE context release to the plurality of target cells”;
Regarding Claim 19, Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”; and
Regarding Claim 20:
Line 1 — “processors is further” should read as “processors [[is]]are further”; and
Line 3 — “communicate, the UE” should read as “communicate, to the UE”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 18, the term “new PCell” in claims 1 (at line 11), 12 (at line 8), and 18 (at line 10) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “new PCell” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “new PCell” at least suggests that the PCell being referred to is not yet defined in the prior art (i.e., “new”), however a standard for determining whether a PCell is new or not is not specially defined in the Specification or in the claims at issue.
Regarding Claims 2-5, 8, 13, and 20, by virtue of depending on claims 1, 12, or 18, these claims at least inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) upon which they depend, and do not appear to remedy the deficiency of not defining the term “new PCell”.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a connection between the claimed baseband circuitry and a claimed supplementary cell (SuC) from which information is claimed to be received (i.e., how the claimed information is received from the claimed SuC).
Further regarding Claims 3-5, and Regarding 6-7, by virtue of depending on claim 2, these claims at least inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) upon which they depend, and do not appear to remedy the deficiency of providing for how the claimed information is capable of being received by the claimed baseband circuitry.
Further regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation "the PCell failure information is communicated to " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because Claim 5’s Line 5’s “the SuC” may refer to either claim 2’s supplementary cell (SuC) from which information is received and used to establish a connection with the claimed “new PCell” (SuC1) or claim 5’s supplementary cell (SuC) involved in the claimed random access channel (RACH) procedure (SuC2). Although claim 5’s lines 5-6’s “during the RACH procedure” may imply that Claim 5’s line 5’s “the SuC” refers to SuC2, that implication is not actually required by claim 5 — claim 5 could conceivably encompass a UE receiving information from SuC1 from which establishment of a connection with a “new” PCell is based, the UE performing a RACH procedure with SuC2 that may be different from SuC1, and the UE communicating PCell failure information to SuC1 during the RACH procedure with SuC2. Since “the SuC” may refer to either SuC1 or SuC2, and SuC1 and SuC2 may be distinct SuCs, “the SuC” lacks a defined antecedent basis, and is therefore undefined, thereby rendering claim 5 to be undefined.
Further regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites the limitation "the signal (emphasis added)" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 9-11, by virtue of depending on claims 1, 12, or 18, these claims at least inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) upon which they depend, and do not appear to remedy the deficiency of providing an antecedent basis for the signal quality associated with the SuC.
Regarding Claim 16, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “the new PCell” in the first occurrence of the term in line 5 of claim 16 is used by the claim to mean “the to be new PCell,” while the accepted meaning is “the new PCell.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Here, in Claim 16, a neighboring cell other than the claimed SuC is determined to be the new PCell (i.e., the neighbor cell will be the new PCell), and then requires configuring the new PCell to become the new PCell. However, logically, no cell is currently the new PCell until after it is configured to become the new PCell. Thus, if the claimed neighbor cell is intended to actually become the new PCell, then “configure the new PCell to become the new PCell” should read as “configure the neighboring [[P]]cell to become the new PCell”. However, since such an amendment would significantly alter the current scope of claim 16 by importing information not currently present in claim 16, claim 16 cannot be further considered against the prior art.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites the limitation "UE context release" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due to lack of “a” or “the” before the term at issue. Thus, whether “UE context release” refers to a UE context release that may be different from the UE context release from the new PCell as described in line 6 or a potentially different UE context release is undefined, which renders claim 17 as a whole undefined.
Further, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “the PCell” in line 8 of claim 17 is used by the claim to mean “the new PCell,” while the accepted meaning is “the PCell.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Here, even if the issues of claim 17 noted above are all addressed, claim 17 would still result in a base station currently serving as a PCell receiving a UE context release from a target cell meant to serve as the next PCell for the UE and the base station sending a UE context release to the target cells except for the currently-serving PCell, which would apparently include instructing the target cell meant to serve as the next PCell also releasing the UE context, which would prevent the target cell from actually serving as the next PCell.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0239751, hereinafter Kim) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0256634, hereinafter Kim’634).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses baseband circuitry, comprising:
a memory (Fig. 14 and ¶ 290 disclose a UE as an example of a first device as shown in Fig. 2; Fig. 2 and ¶ 62 disclose the first device as a UE; ¶¶ 66 and 291 disclose the first device/UE as including memory) ; and
one or more processors configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the baseband circuitry to (¶¶ 66 and 291 disclose the first device/UE as including a processor configured to implement the proposed functions, procedures, and/or methods described throughout Kim’s disclosure; ¶¶ 66 and 295 disclose the processor implementing software stored in coupled memory to perform the disclosed functions, procedures, and methods):
establish, via radio frequency (RF) circuitry, a primary radio link corresponding to a primary cell (PCell) (Fig. 13 and ¶¶ 276-280 disclose the UE receiving a Radio Resource Control (RRC) reconfiguration message and an RRC reconfiguration complete message, synchronizing with a PSCell in a random access procedure, receiving an RRC reconfiguration complete message from the PCell, and the UE evaluating mobility characteristics for PCell handover — all at least implying an established connection between the UE and PCell (Note: Fig. 13 appears to include a typographical error wherein the right-most “Source PCell” should be labeled as “Target PCell” in view of the associated description));
detect a radio link failure (RLF) corresponding to the primary radio link (Fig. 13 and ¶ 281 disclose the UE detecting a Radio Link Failure (RLF) in the PCell or a random access problem indication from Master Cell Group (MCG) Medium Access Control (MAC));
generate PCell failure information in response to the RLF (Fig. 13 and ¶ 283 disclose the UE sending an MCG failure information indication to the PSCell, wherein for such an indication to be sent, the indication must have been generated at some point in the transceiver of the UE as caused by the processor of the UE executing the software of the memory of the UE as illustrated in Fig. 2);
send the PCell failure information to an interface with the RF circuitry for transmission to a base station (Fig. 13 and ¶ 283 disclose the UE sending the RLF indication to the PSCell; Fig. 2 and ¶ 66 disclose the UE as further comprising a transceiver controlled by the processor to transmit and receive wireless signals; ¶ 269 discloses a base station (e.g., an eNB) as associated with the PCell; ¶ 76 discloses the UE as connected to the eNB via a Uu interface — thus, disclosure of a UE transmitting or receiving messages to/from a PCell, PSCell or another cell, is understood as occurring through a Uu interface of the transceiver of the UE to/from a base station); and
establish, via the RF circuitry, a connection with a new PCell (Fig. 13 and ¶ 283 disclose the UE starting a T316 timer to determine whether to initiate a recovery procedure; ¶ 284 discloses the UE continuing to evaluate whether PCell handover mobility execution conditions have been met while the T316 timer is running; ¶ 285 discloses the UE resuming bearers for MCG transmission when the conditions are met; and ¶ 289 discloses the UE performing a random access procedure on the target PCell).
Kim may not explicitly disclose wherein establishing the connection with the new PCell is in response to sending the PCell failure information.
However, in analogous art, Kim’634 discloses establishing a connection with a new PCell in response to sending a PCell failure indication (Fig. 24 and ¶ 314 disclose that based on detecting the radio link failure, the UE may initiate an MCG failure information procedure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kim'634 to modify Kim in order to initiate failure recovery in response to detecting a failure. One would have been motivated to do this, because recovering a failed connection in response to detecting the failure would enable faster recovery with a high likelihood of success over relying on a process that just so happens to recover the failed connection although that process is not necessarily in response to detecting the failed connection.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim-Kim’634 disclose the baseband circuitry of claim 1.
Kim discloses wherein the connection with the new PCell is established based on information received from a supplementary cell (SuC) (Fig. 13 and ¶¶ 278 and 280 disclose a UE performing random access and synchronizing with a PSCell and performing a handover evaluation for mobility execution conditions with candidate target cells (Note: Fig. 13 appears to include a typographical error wherein the right-most “Source PCell” should be labeled as “Target PCell” in view of the associated description)).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim-Kim’634 disclose the baseband circuitry of claim 2.
Kim discloses wherein the one or more processors is further configured to cause the baseband circuitry to:
generate a request for fast PCell recovery (Fig. 13 and ¶ 283 disclose the UE deciding to trigger initiation of connection re-establishment and sending MCG failure information to the PSCell, wherein sending the disclosed MCG failure information at least requires some component of the UE to generate the sent MCG failure information as controlled by the processor in order for the MCG failure information to be sent as disclosed; and ¶ 286 discloses the UE sending new PCell indication or cell information of a target PCell to the PSCell).
Kim may not explicitly disclose the wherein the one or more processor is further configured to cause the baseband circuitry to:
receive a configuration grant for a supplementary cell (SuC) in response to the request for fast PCell recovery.
However, in analogous art, Kim’634 discloses:
receive a configuration grant for a supplementary cell (SuC) in response to the request for fast PCell recovery (Fig. 24 and ¶ 314 disclose a UE initiating an MCG failure information procedure based on detecting a radio link failure in the MCG (Pcell), based on the initiation, the UE sends an MCG failure information message to an SCG (PSCell, Suc), and the SCG is illustrated as sending an RRC reconfiguration/RRC release message to the UE because of receiving the MCG failure information from the UE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kim'634 to modify Kim in order to receive configuration information from a secondary cell group (SCG, e.g., PSCell) in response to indicating RLF to the SCG. One would have been motivated to do this, because the disclosed procedure enables the disclosed MCG failure information procedure (Kim’634 ¶ 314).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-Kim'634 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Byun et al. (US 2022/0124817, hereinafter Byun).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim-Kim’634 disclose the baseband circuitry of claim 2
Kim-Kim’634 may not explicitly disclose wherein:
the one or more processors is further configured to cause the baseband circuitry to:
perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure involving a supplementary cell (SuC), and
the PCell failure information is communicated to the SuC during the RACH procedure.
However, in analogous art, Byun discloses wherein:
the one or more processors is further configured to cause the baseband circuitry to:
perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure involving a supplementary cell (SuC) (Fig. 20 and ¶ 329 discloses a UE performing a random access procedure with a target gNB), and
the PCell failure information is communicated to the SuC during the RACH procedure (Id. further discloses the UE including RLF cell information in its response during the RA procedure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Byun to modify Kim-Kim'634 in order to provide an RLF indication to a supplemental cell during a random access procedure with the supplemental cell. One would have been motivated to do this, because such a procedure enables recovery even in the case of too late handover (Byun ¶ 307).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 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:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the ordered combination of all of the features of at least dependent claims 15, and 19. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to disclose a supplemental cell (SuC) being selected and configured to serve as a primary cell of user equipment which the SuC serves, in ordered combination with all the other features of at least any one of the independent claims.
Further search and consideration has not resulted in any other prior art that could be reasonable read, alone or in combination, to disclose the subject matter at issue.
Therefore, claims 15 and 19 would be allowed if the informalities indicated above are remedied and rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Belleschi et al. (US 2026/0032546), at Fig. 7 and ¶¶ 165-171, discloses a first or second Radio Access Network (RAN, i.e., PCell or PSCell/SuC) providing RRC reconfiguration to a UE, which then provides an SCGFailureInformation message to the RAN accordingly, at Fig. 11, ¶¶ 238 and 261, discloses a sequence of a UE receiving fast MCG recovery configuration from a first or second RAN, then detecting a failure condition in the MCG, and then transmitting an MCG failure report to the second RAN, and, at Fig. 11, ¶¶ 238, 247, 255, and 262-264, discloses the UE indicating its ability for fast MCG recovery to a third RAN, which could conceivably serve as a request, receiving a request from the third RAN which could conceivably serve as a configuration grant, and the UE then sending fact MCG recovery procedure information to the third RAN, which could conceivably serve as generating and sending PCell failure information to a SuC. However there is no apparent motivation to use Belleschi to modify the cited prior art to arrive at any of the claimed inventions.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights