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 § 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 1-15 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 claim 1, line 5 of this claim contains the term “the SgNB”. There is no prior mention of any SgNB within the claim language. Thus, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for this term. Further, the specific meaning of the abbreviation SgNB is not defined within the claim language. It is recommended that the claim language be amended such that there is proper antecedent basis for the term “SgNB” and such that the meaning of the abbreviation is defined.
Claims 2-15 are rejected since they each depend on claim 1, and thus contain the same above identified indefinite language.
Further regarding claim 12, line 4 of this claim contains the term “the gNB-DU”. Although a previous ‘DU’ is defined within the claim language, no specific ‘gNB-DU’ is defined. Thus, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for the term “the gNB-DU” within the claim language.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant’s admitted prior art (hereafter referred to as AAPA) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Publication US 2025/0351028 A1).
With respect to claim 1, AAPA discloses a method in Multi-Radio Dual Connectivity (MR-DC) where User Equipment (UE) accesses a Master evolved Node B (MeNB) connected to a 5G Control Unit-Control Plane (CU-CP) and to a 5G Control Unit-User Plane (CU-UP) of the UE (See Figure 1A and paragraph 14 of the Applicant’s specification for reference to a prior art method in MR-DC where a UE accesses a MeNB connected to a CU-CP and a CU-UP). AAPA also discloses the SgNB initiating intra Distributed Unit (DU) handover from a source cell towards a target cell (See Figure 1A and paragraph 14 of the Applicant’s specification for reference to initiating an Intra-DU handover between source and target cells). AAPA further discloses the CU-CP allocating UE context in the target cell (See Figure 1A, paragraph 14, and paragraph 45 of Applicant’s specification for reference to steps 3-8 that correspond to UE context creation at the target cell). AAPA also discloses the CU-CP stopping a data flow from the DU when the UE context is successfully setup in the target cell in CU-UP and DU; and the DU stopping transmission of data for the UE and the CU-UP stopping the transmission of data for the UE toward the source cell (See Figure 1B, paragraph 14, and paragraphs 52-54 of Applicant’s specification for reference to steps 9-11 that correspond to stopping the data flow from the source cell after the setup of the context in the target cell in steps 3-8). AAPA further discloses when a SCG random-access failure from the UE to the DU occurs, the UE triggers a Radio Link Failure (RLF) message to the MeNB, which includes New Radio (NR) measurement results at the time of the failure (See Figure 1B and paragraph 14 of Applicant’s specification for reference to a Random Access Failure towards the new cell in step 18, and for reference to the UE sending SCG Failure Information to MeNB including measurement results at the time of the failure in step 19). AAPA does not specifically disclose the CU-CP starting a timer for a duration of reconfiguration of the UE for the target cell. AAPA also does not specifically disclose the MeNB transmitting the RLF message to the 5G CU-CP; and the 5G CU-CP decoding the RLF message and categorizing the SCG failure. However, Wang et al., in the field of communications, discloses staring a T304 timer, which is known in the art to be a timer started for the execution window of reconfiguration due to a handover (See paragraph 277 of Wang et al.). Wang et al. also discloses that when a SCG failure occurs, a UE sends SCG failure information to a master node, MN, and the MN sends the SCG failure information to a secondary node, SN, wherein the SN performs final root cause analysis to determine a specific failure type of the SCG failure (See paragraphs 266-295 of Wang et al.). Using a T304 timer has the advantage of controlling the amount of time allotted for handover execution and determining a specific failure type of a SCG failure during handover has the advantage of allowing for future adjustments in handover procedures to prevent the specifically determined failure type. 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 Wang et al., to combine using a T304 and determining a specific failure type of a SCG failure during handover, as suggested by Wang et al., within the system and method illustrated by AAPA, with the motivation being to control the amount of time allotted for handover execution and to allow for future adjustments in handover procedures to prevent the specifically determined failure type.
With respect to claim 2, as shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Wang et al. renders obvious performing root cause analysis of a SCG failure during a handover. Wang et al. also discloses that the failure type may be a too late CPC handover execution (See paragraph 291 of Wang et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 3, as shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Wang et al. renders obvious performing root cause analysis of a SCG failure during a handover. Wang et al. also discloses that the failure type may be a too early CPC handover execution (See paragraph 292 of Wang et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, as shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Wang et al. renders obvious performing root cause analysis of a SCG failure during a handover. Wang et al. also discloses that the failure type may be a wrong cell CPC handover execution (See paragraph 293 of Wang et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 5, as shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Wang et al. renders obvious performing root cause analysis of a SCG failure during a handover. Wang et al. also discloses that the failure type may be a too late CHO handover execution without handover trigger (See paragraph 535 of Wang et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 6, as shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Wang et al. renders obvious performing root cause analysis of a SCG failure during a handover. Wang et al. also discloses that the failure type may be a RLF during CHO execution to a wrong cell (See paragraph 291 of Wang et al.). Wang et al. does not disclose that this type of failure is limited to an MR-DC variant, such that it may apply to all MR-DC variants. Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 7, AAPA discloses wherein the SCG failure is selected from the group consisting of: Intra-DU, Inter-DU, Inter-CU, and combinations thereof (See Figure 1A and paragraph 14 of Applicant’s specification for reference to SCG handover failure during an Intra-DU handover).
With respect to claim 8, AAPA discloses wherein the SCG failure is selected from the group consisting of: Intra-frequency handovers, Inter-frequency handovers, and combinations thereof (See Figure 1A and paragraph 11 of Applicant’s specification for reference to intra-frequency and intra-frequency handover).
With respect to claim 9, AAPA discloses wherein prior to the step of the SgNB initiating intra Distributed Unit (DU) handover, the method comprises the following steps: the MeNB receiving from the UE a Radio Resource Control (RRC) transfer message that includes measurement results containing intra-frequency/inter-frequency neighbor cell Physical Cell Id (PCI) and corresponding Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP); and the MeNB transmitting the transfer message as a container in a UE report to the CU-CP; and the CU-CP decoding the transfer message (See Figure 1A, paragraph 14, and paragraphs 41-46 of Applicant’s specification for reference to steps 1-3 including the MeNB receiving a ULInformationTransferMRDC including measurement results corresponding to intra-frequency neighbor cell PCI in step 1, the MeNB sending an RRC Transfer message to the CU-CP including the measurement report in step 2, and the CU-CP decoding the RRC transfer message in step 3).
With respect to claim 10, AAPA discloses wherein the setup of the UE context comprises the steps: the CU-UP allocating a new context modification request for all bearers for the UE; the CU-UP transmitting the context modification request to the CU-CP; and the CU-CP transmitting the context modification request to the DU (See Figure 1A, paragraph 14, and paragraphs 46-48 of Applicant’s specification for reference to steps 4-5 including the CU-UP allocating and sending a Bearer Context Modification Response to the CU-CP in step 4, and the CU-CP sending a UE Context Modification request to the DU in step 5).
With respect to claim 11, AAPA discloses the DU transmitting a context modification response to the CU-CP; the CU-CP transmitting a bearer context modification request to the CU-UP; and the CU-UP transmitting a bearer context modification response to the CU-CP (See Figure 1A, paragraph 14, and paragraphs 49-51 of Applicant’s specification for reference to steps 6-8 including the DU transmitting a UE Context Modification Response to the CU-CP, the CU-CP transmitting a Bearer Context Modification Request to the CU-UP, and the CU-UP transmitting a Bearer Context Modification Response to the CU-CP).
With respect to claim 12, AAPA discloses wherein the step of the CU-CP stopping a data flow from the DU comprises the steps: when a UE Context Modification Request Transmission Action Indicator indicates stop, the gNB-DU stops the transmission for UE; a Downlink Data Delivery Status is provided from the DU to the CU-UP; and a UE context Modification Response is provided from the DU to the CU-CP (See Figure 1B, paragraph 14, and paragraphs 52-54 of Applicant’s specification for reference to steps 9-11 including the CU-CP transmitting a UE Context Modification Request Transmission Action Indicator = stop to the DU in step 9, the DU transmitting a Downlink Data Deliver Status to the CU-UP in step 10, and the DU transmitting a UE Context Modification Response to the CU-CP in step 11).
With respect to claim 13, AAPA discloses the SCG transmits a Secondary next generation Node B (SgNB) modification required signal containing a Resource Block (RB) configuration for the target cell to the MeNB; the MeNB transmits a RRC connection reconfiguration signal to the UE; the UE transmits a RRC connection reconfiguration complete signal to the MeNB; and the MeNB sends a SgNB modification confirm signal to the SgNB (See Figure 1B, paragraph 14, and paragraphs 55-58 of Applicant’s specification for reference to steps 12-15 including the SgNB transmitting a SgNB Modification Required to the MeNB in step 12, the MeNB transmitting a RRCConnectionReconfiguration to the UE in step 13, the UE transmitting a RRCReconfigurationComplete to the MeNB in step 14, and the MeNB transmitting a SgNB Modification Confirm to the SgNB in step 15).
With respect to claim 14, AAPA discloses wherein the RLF message to the MeNB includes current NR measurement results, the method further comprising: the MeNB triggers SgNB release and the MeNB converts the SCG split bearer to an MCG bearer; the MeNB sends a SgNB release request to the CU-CP; and the CU-CP sends a SgNB release request acknowledge to the MeNB (See Figure 1B, paragraph 14, and paragraph 62 of Applicant’s specification for reference to steps 19-21 including the UE transmitting SCGFailureInformationNR including NR measurement results to the MeNB in step 19, the MeNB transmitting a SgNB connection release message in step 20, and the SgNB transmitting a SgNB release request Acknowledge to the MeNB in step 21, wherein the MeNB converts the SCG split bearer to MCG bearer during these steps).
With respect to claim 15, AAPA discloses the MeNB sends a RRC connection reconfiguration signal to the UE; and the UE sends a RRC connection reconfiguration complete signal to the MeNB; wherein if the conversion from SCG split bearer to MCG bearer is successful, then the UE context is released in the SgNB (See Figure 1B, paragraph 14, and paragraphs 62-70 of Applicant’s specification for reference to steps 22-28 including the MeNB transmitting a RRCConectionReconfiguration to the UE in step 22, the UE sending a RRCConnectionReconfiguration Complete to the MeNB in step 23, wherein steps 24-28 of releasing the UE context in the SgNB are performed after the conversion of the SCG split bearer to the MCG bearer in steps 20-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Belleschi et al. (U.S. Publication US 2026/0107315 A1), Gupta et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0236776 A1), and Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0137830 A1) each disclose relevant systems and methods of categorizing handover failures in MR-DC.
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