DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-18, 20 and 22, have been examined and are pending.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “ INFORMATION TRANSCEIVING METHOD, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR A FAST MASTER CELL GROUP (MCG) LINK RECOVERY”
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9, 10, 15-16 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.
Claim(s) 4 is 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. Claim 4, recites the limitation "the request of the network side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 5 is 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. Claim 5, recites at least
“…the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information is one or more of:
T316 configured by a network side;
…...
A time difference between a transmitting of MCG failure information and a reception of feedback information from the network side;
an elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side after transmitting of the MCG failure information…
a proportion or percentage of a time duration of the T316 accounted….
whether a feedback from the network side is received prior to expiration of the T316;
whether the feedback from the network side is received at the expiration of the T316
feedback information received prior to the expiration of the T316;
feedback information received at the expiration of the T316
The antecedent basis of the limitation, “the T316” is dependent on the first information being a “T316 configured by a network side”. However, the claim makes “T316 configured by a network side” optional. The antecedent basis of the limitation, “the feedback” is dependent on the first information being “A time difference between a transmitting of MCG failure information and a reception of feedback information from the network side”. However, the claim makes this optional. Thus, for at least these reasons it is unclear what Applicants seeks to claim coverage for with respect to claim 5.
Claim(s) 9 is 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. Claim 9, recites the limitation "the request of the network side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 10 is 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. Claim 10, recites at least
“…the method according to claim 6, wherein the first information is one or more of:
T316 configured by a network side;
…...
A time difference between a transmitting of MCG failure information and a reception of feedback information from the network side;
an elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side after transmitting of the MCG failure information…
a proportion or percentage of a time duration of the T316 accounted….
whether a feedback from the network side is received prior to expiration of the T316;
whether the feedback from the network side is received at the expiration of the T316
feedback information received prior to the expiration of the T316;
feedback information received at the expiration of the T316
The antecedent basis of the limitation, “the T316” is dependent on the first information being a “T316 configured by a network side”. However, the claim makes “T316 configured by a network side” optional. The antecedent basis of the limitation, “the feedback” is dependent on the first information being “A time difference between a transmitting of MCG failure information and a reception of feedback information from the network side”. However, the claim makes this optional. Thus, for at least these reasons it is unclear what Applicants seeks to claim coverage for with respect to claim 10.
Claim(s) 13 is 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. Claim 13, recites the limitation "the feedback information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 15 is 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. Referring to Claim 15, which at least recites the following, “… determining whether configuration information for a handover is reasonable based on indication information enabling a network side to be aware that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs, and measurement information of a serving cell, a neighbor cell, and a target cell measured prior to the handover being initiated or during the handover in case that a handover command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information.”
The term “reasonable” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reasonable” 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. It is not clear from the claim or the instant application as to what necessary requirements of the “indication information” and the “measurement information” for qualifying “the configuration information” as “reasonable” for a handover.
Further with respect Claim 15, Claim 15, recites the limitation "the MCG failure information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 16 is 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. Referring to Claim 15, which at least recites the following, “… determining whether configuration information for a handover is reasonable based on indication information enabling a network side to be aware that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs, and measurement information of a serving cell, a neighbor cell, and a target cell measured prior to the handover being initiated or during the handover in case that a handover command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information.”
Referring to Claim 16, which at least recites the following “…according to whether the UE experiences an RLF or performs a re-establishment subsequently, determining whether a newly configured parameter is reasonable based on indication information enabling a network side to be aware that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs, and a parameter reconfigured in case that a reconfiguration command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information.”
The term “reasonable” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reasonable” 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. It is not clear from the claim or the instant application as to what necessary requirements of the “indication information” and the “parameter” for qualifying “newly configured parameter” as “reasonable”.
Further with respect Claim 16, Claim 16, recites the limitation "the MCG failure information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WU (WO 2021232202 A1, cited in IDS received December 9, 2025).
In regards to claim 1, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches an information transmitting method, comprising: reporting, by a user equipment (UE), first information, the first information being information related to fast master cell group (MCG) link recovery (See where, “[0011] Some embodiments of the present application provide a further method for wireless communications. The method may be performed by a BS. The method includes: transmitting a user equipment (UE) information request; receiving a UE information response including a radio link failure (RLF) report, wherein the RLF report includes information related to a radio link failure (RLF) of a source link for a master cell group (MCG) during a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover procedure; and transmitting a failure indication, wherein the failure indication includes an information element (IE) regarding a successful completion of the DAPS handover procedure… [0043] In some other embodiments of FIG. 2 of the present application, in the case that a failure for a MCG happens, the UE 101 may initiate (or, trigger) a fast MCG link recovery procedure, i.e., a MCG failure information procedure. [0044] Specifically, in some embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, as shown in FIG. 2, in operation 201, the UE 101 and the MN 102 may communicate RRC reconfiguration information. In operation 202, the UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102. For example, the failure for the MCG may refer to a RLF happening in a PCell of the MCG. The message associated with the failure for the MCG in operation 202 may be a MCGFailureInformation message as specified in 3GPP standard documents. ” ).
In regards to claim 18, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches a UE, comprising: a processor configured to read a program in a memory and perform the following step (See where it recites, “[0010] Some embodiments of the present application also provide an apparatus for wireless communications. The apparatus includes: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; a receiving circuitry; a transmitting circuitry; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the receiving circuitry and the transmitting circuitry, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned method performed by a UE.”): reporting first information, the first information being information related to fast master cell group link recovery (See where, “[0011] Some embodiments of the present application provide a further method for wireless communications. The method may be performed by a BS. The method includes: transmitting a user equipment (UE) information request; receiving a UE information response including a radio link failure (RLF) report, wherein the RLF report includes information related to a radio link failure (RLF) of a source link for a master cell group (MCG) during a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover procedure; and transmitting a failure indication, wherein the failure indication includes an information element (IE) regarding a successful completion of the DAPS handover procedure… [0043] In some other embodiments of FIG. 2 of the present application, in the case that a failure for a MCG happens, the UE 101 may initiate (or, trigger) a fast MCG link recovery procedure, i.e., a MCG failure information procedure. [0044] Specifically, in some embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, as shown in FIG. 2, in operation 201, the UE 101 and the MN 102 may communicate RRC reconfiguration information. In operation 202, the UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102. For example, the failure for the MCG may refer to a RLF happening in a PCell of the MCG. The message associated with the failure for the MCG in operation 202 may be a MCGFailureInformation message as specified in 3GPP standard documents. ” ); and a transceiver configured to receive and transmit data under control of the processor (“[0010] Some embodiments of the present application also provide an apparatus for wireless communications. The apparatus includes: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; a receiving circuitry; a transmitting circuitry; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the receiving circuitry and the transmitting circuitry, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned method performed by a UE”).
In regards to claim 22, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the method according to claim 1 (“[0010] Some embodiments of the present application also provide an apparatus for wireless communications. The apparatus includes: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; a receiving circuitry; a transmitting circuitry; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the receiving circuitry and the transmitting circuitry, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned method performed by a UE”).
In regards to claim 2, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information is obtained through one of or a combination of following manners: recording by the UE, recording by the UE according to a configuration by network administration, recording by the UE according to a configuration by a trace collection entity (TCE), and recording by the UE according to a configuration by a base station (“[0050] In the abovementioned embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, the UE 101 may set a MCG failure type (referred to as "failureType" ) as follows: ..If the UE 101 initiates a transmission of the MCGFailureInformation message as shown in operation 202, due to the expiry of a timer T310 (which may be referred to as a physical layer problem timer) as specified in 3GPP standard documents, the UE 101 sets the failureType as t310-Expiry as specified in 3GPP standard documents…”).
In regards to claim 3, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information is reported in one of the following conditions: the UE being in a connected state, the UE being in a transition procedure to the connected state, the UE being transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment request message, and the UE being transmitting a radio link failure report (See where, “ [0042] In 3GPP Release 16, a fast MCG link recovery procedure is introduced for a MR-DC scenario. The fast MCG link recovery procedure may be also referred to as a MCG failure information procedure. The purpose of this procedure is to inform a RLF for a MCG to a MN via a SN connected to a UE, such that the UE in RRC_CONNECTED state may initiate the fast MCG link recovery procedure to quickly continue a RRC connection without performing a re-establishment procedure.”).
In regards to claim 4, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information is reported under the request of a network side, or the first information is reported by the UE proactively, or the first information is reported under the request of the network side following the UE informing the network side of existence of relevant information (See where, “[0044] Specifically, in some embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, as shown in FIG. 2, in operation 201, the UE 101 and the MN 102 may communicate RRC reconfiguration information. In operation 202, the UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102. For example, the failure for the MCG may refer to a RLF happening in a PCell of the MCG. The message associated with the failure for the MCG in operation 202 may be a MCGFailureInformation message as specified in 3GPP standard documents.”).
In regards to claim 5, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information is one or more of: T316 configured by a network side; a radio link failure (RLF) detection related parameter used when an MCG failure is detected; a time difference between a transmitting of MCG failure information and a reception of feedback information from the network side; an elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side after the transmitting of the MCG failure information; a proportion or percentage of a time duration of the T316 accounted for by the elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side after the transmitting of the MCG failure information; whether a feedback from the network side is received prior to expiration of the T316; whether the feedback from the network side is received at the expiration of the T316; feedback information received prior to the expiration of the T316; feedback information received at the expiration of the T316; status information of a secondary cell group (SCG); whether the UE is performing a procedure of conditional PSCell change (CPC); whether the UE is performing a procedure of conditional PSCell addition (CPA); whether the UE has triggered CPC; whether the UE has triggered CPA; indication information indicating that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery, in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs; measurement information of a serving cell, a neighbor cell, and a target cell measured prior to the handover being initiated or during the handover, in case that a handover command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information; a reconfigured parameter, in case that a reconfiguration command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information; a measurement result of a master node (MN), the MCG, or a primary cell (PCell), in case that an RRC release command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information; and indication information indicating that the measurement result exceeds a predetermined threshold, in case that the RRC release command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information (See where, “[0044] Specifically, in some embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, as shown in FIG. 2, in operation 201, the UE 101 and the MN 102 may communicate RRC reconfiguration information. In operation 202, the UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102. For example, the failure for the MCG may refer to a RLF happening in a PCell of the MCG. The message associated with the failure for the MCG in operation 202 may be a MCGFailureInformation message as specified in 3GPP standard documents…[0050] In the abovementioned embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, the UE 101 may set a MCG failure type (referred to as "failureType" ) as follows: ..If the UE 101 initiates a transmission of the MCGFailureInformation message as shown in operation 202, due to the expiry of a timer T310 (which may be referred to as a physical layer problem timer) as specified in 3GPP standard documents, the UE 101 sets the failureType as t310-Expiry as specified in 3GPP standard documents…”).
.
In regards to claim 6, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches an information receiving method, comprising: receiving, by a base station, first information reported by a UE, the first information being information related to fast master cell group link recovery; and configuring, by the base station, the fast master cell group link recovery based on the first information (See where, “[0011] Some embodiments of the present application provide a further method for wireless communications. The method may be performed by a BS. The method includes: transmitting a user equipment (UE) information request; receiving a UE information response including a radio link failure (RLF) report, wherein the RLF report includes information related to a radio link failure (RLF) of a source link for a master cell group (MCG) during a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover procedure; and transmitting a failure indication, wherein the failure indication includes an information element (IE) regarding a successful completion of the DAPS handover procedure… [0043] In some other embodiments of FIG. 2 of the present application, in the case that a failure for a MCG happens, the UE 101 may initiate (or, trigger) a fast MCG link recovery procedure, i.e., a MCG failure information procedure. [0044] Specifically, in some embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, as shown in FIG. 2, in operation 201, the UE 101 and the MN 102 may communicate RRC reconfiguration information. In operation 202, the UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102. For example, the failure for the MCG may refer to a RLF happening in a PCell of the MCG. The message associated with the failure for the MCG in operation 202 may be a MCGFailureInformation message as specified in 3GPP standard documents...[0048] After receiving the message associated with the failure for the MCG, the MN 102 may further transmit a response message to the UE 101. The response message may be a RRC reconfiguration message including a handover (HO) command for a cell. The response message may be a RRC release message. In an embodiment of the present application, the handover command may be a reconfigurationWithSync configuration as specified in 3GPP standard documents. The MN 102 may not directly transmit the response message to the UE 101. Instead, the MN 102 may transmit the response message to a SN (e.g., SN 103 as shown and illustrated in FIG. 1) , and then the SN may transfer the response message to the UE 101. ” ).
In regards to claim 20, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches a base station, comprising: a processor configured to read a program in a memory and perform the method according to claim 6; and a transceiver configured to receive and transmit data under control of the processor (See where “[0012] Some embodiments of the present application also provide an apparatus for wireless communications. The apparatus includes: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions; a receiving circuitry; a transmitting circuitry; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the receiving circuitry and the transmitting circuitry, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to implement the above-mentioned further method performed by a BS.”).
In regards to claim 7, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the first information is obtained through one of or a combination of following manners: recording by the UE, recording by the UE according to a configuration by network administration, recording by the UE according to a configuration by a TCE, and recording by the UE according to a configuration by a base station (“[0050] In the abovementioned embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, the UE 101 may set a MCG failure type (referred to as "failureType" ) as follows: ..If the UE 101 initiates a transmission of the MCGFailureInformation message as shown in operation 202, due to the expiry of a timer T310 (which may be referred to as a physical layer problem timer) as specified in 3GPP standard documents, the UE 101 sets the failureType as t310-Expiry as specified in 3GPP standard documents…”).
In regards to claim 8, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the first information is reported in one of the following conditions: the UE being in a connected state, the UE being in a transition procedure to the connected state, the UE being transmitting an RRC re-establishment request message, and the UE being transmitting a radio link failure report (See where, “ [0042] In 3GPP Release 16, a fast MCG link recovery procedure is introduced for a MR-DC scenario. The fast MCG link recovery procedure may be also referred to as a MCG failure information procedure. The purpose of this procedure is to inform a RLF for a MCG to a MN via a SN connected to a UE, such that the UE in RRC_CONNECTED state may initiate the fast MCG link recovery procedure to quickly continue a RRC connection without performing a re-establishment procedure.”).
In regards to claim 9, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the first information is reported under the request of a network side, or the first information is reported by the UE proactively, or the first information is reported under the request of the network side following the UE informing the network side of existence of relevant information (See where, “[0044] Specifically, in some embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, as shown in FIG. 2, in operation 201, the UE 101 and the MN 102 may communicate RRC reconfiguration information. In operation 202, the UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102. For example, the failure for the MCG may refer to a RLF happening in a PCell of the MCG. The message associated with the failure for the MCG in operation 202 may be a MCGFailureInformation message as specified in 3GPP standard documents.”).
In regards to claim 10, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the first information is one or more of: T316 configured by a network side; a radio link failure (RLF) detection related parameter used when a master cell group (MCG) failure is detected; a time difference between a transmitting of MCG failure information and a reception of feedback information from the network side; an elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side after the transmitting of the MCG failure information; a proportion or percentage of a time duration of the T316 accounted for by the elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side after the transmitting of the MCG failure information; whether the feedback from the network side is received prior to expiration of the T316; whether the feedback from the network side is received at the expiration of the T316; feedback information received prior to the expiration of the T316; feedback information received at the expiration of the T316; status information of a secondary cell group (SCG); whether the UE is performing a procedure of conditional PSCell change (CPC); whether the UE is performing a procedure of conditional PSCell addition (CPA); whether the UE has triggered CPC; whether the UE has triggered CPA; indication information indicating that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery, in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs; measurement information of a serving cell, a neighbor cell, and a target cell measured prior to the handover being initiated or during the handover, in case that a handover command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information; a reconfigured parameter, in case that a reconfiguration command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information; a measurement result of a master node (MN), the MCG, or a primary cell (PCell), in case that an RRC release command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information; and indication information indicating that the measurement result exceeds a predetermined threshold, in case that the RRC release command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information (See where, “[0044] Specifically, in some embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, as shown in FIG. 2, in operation 201, the UE 101 and the MN 102 may communicate RRC reconfiguration information. In operation 202, the UE 101 may initiate a MCG failure information procedure and transmit a message associated with a failure for a MCG to the MN 102. For example, the failure for the MCG may refer to a RLF happening in a PCell of the MCG. The message associated with the failure for the MCG in operation 202 may be a MCGFailureInformation message as specified in 3GPP standard documents…[0050] In the abovementioned embodiments of a MCG failure information procedure, the UE 101 may set a MCG failure type (referred to as "failureType" ) as follows: ..If the UE 101 initiates a transmission of the MCGFailureInformation message as shown in operation 202, due to the expiry of a timer T310 (which may be referred to as a physical layer problem timer) as specified in 3GPP standard documents, the UE 101 sets the failureType as t310-Expiry as specified in 3GPP standard documents…”).
In regards to claim 11, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the configuring the fast master cell group link recovery based on the first information comprises: in case that no feedback information is received from a network side at the expiration of T316, the UE has performed a re-establishment, and it is determined that the UE does not receive feedback from the network side due to the T316 being configured too short based on T316 configured by the network side, whether feedback from the network side is received prior to the expiration of the T316, whether the feedback from the network side is received at the expiration of the T316, indication information enabling the network side to be aware that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs, and a measurement result of the UE, configuring the T316 to be longer (With respect to method claims having contingent limitations, “…in case that no feedback information is received from a network side at expiration of T316….configuring the T316 to be longer”, that the “…broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B… See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10.” Thus for this method claim, the only steps that have been determined to be required are those of its parent claim, claim 6.).
In regards to claim 12, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method the method according to claim 6, wherein the configuring the fast master cell group link recovery based on the first information comprises: in case that no feedback information is received from a network side at the expiration of T316, the UE has performed a re-establishment, and it is determined that an SCG is in a deactivated state based on status information of the SCG, configuring the T316 to be longer such that the UE does not perform the re-establishment prematurely; and/or in case that no feedback information is received from the network side at the expiration of T316 and the UE has performed a re-establishment, configuring, based on information in an RLF detection related parameter used when an MCG failure is detected, a parameter for the UE to detect the MCG failure to be shorter to enable the UE to detect a potential RLF earlier (With respect to method claims having contingent limitations, “…in case that no feedback information is received from a network side at expiration of T316….configuring the T316 to be longer”, that the “…broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B… See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10.” Thus for this method claim, the only steps that have been determined to be required are those of its parent claim, claim 6.).
In regards to claim 13, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method the method according to claim 6, wherein the configuring the fast master cell group link recovery based on the first information comprises: configuring T316 to be longer in case that it is determined that a time difference between an elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side and an expiration of the T316 is within a predetermined duration based on a time difference between a transmitting of MCG failure information and a reception of feedback information from the network side, an elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side after the transmitting of the MCG failure information, a proportion or percentage of a time duration of the T316 accounted for by the elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side after the transmitting of the MCG failure information, a measurement result of the UE, and the T316 configured by the network side; or configuring the T316 to be shorter in case that it is determined that the time difference between the elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side and the expiration of the T316 is longer than the predetermined duration (With respect to method claims having contingent limitations, “…configuring T316 to be longer in case that is determined that a time difference between an elapsed time of the T316 at the reception of the feedback information from the network side…”, that the “…broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B… See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10.” Thus, for this method claim, the only steps that have been determined to be required are those of its parent claim, claim 6.).
In regards to claim 14, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method the method according to claim 6, wherein the configuring the fast master cell group link recovery based on the first information comprises: in case that it is determined that an MCG failure occurs during a procedure of CPC based on whether the UE is performing the procedure of CPC, whether the UE is performing a procedure of CPA, whether the UE has triggered CPC, whether the UE has triggered CPA, and indication information enabling the network side to be aware that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs, configuring the CPC earlier (With respect to method claims having contingent limitations, “…in case that it is determined that an MCG failure occurs during a procedure of CPC based on whether the UE is performing the procedure of CPC… configuring the CPC earlier”, that the “…broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B… See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10.” Thus, for this method claim, the only steps that have been determined to be required are those of its parent claim, claim 6.).
In regards to claim 16, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the configuring the fast master cell group link recovery based on the first information comprises: according to whether the UE experiences an RLF or performs a re-establishment subsequently, determining whether a newly configured parameter is reasonable based on indication information enabling a network side to be aware that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs, and a parameter reconfigured in case that a reconfiguration command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information (With respect to method claims having contingent limitations, “…according to whether the UE experiences an RLF or performs a re-establishment subsequently, determining whether a newly configured parameter is reasonable based on…”, that the “…broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B… See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10.” Thus, for this method claim, the only steps that have been determined to be required are those of its parent claim, claim 6.).
In regards to claim 15, WU (WO 2021232202 A1) teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the configuring the fast master cell group link recovery based on the first information comprises: determining whether configuration information for a handover is reasonable based on indication information enabling a network side to be aware that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs, and measurement information of a serving cell, a neighbor cell, and a target cell measured prior to the handover being initiated or during the handover in case that a handover command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information (With respect to method claims having contingent limitations, “…determining whether configuration information for a handover is reasonable based on indication information …in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs, and measurement information of a serving cell, a neighbor cell, and a target cell measured prior to the handover being initiated or during the handover in case that a handover command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information…”, that the “…broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B… See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10.” Thus, for this method claim, the only steps that have been determined to be required are those of its parent claim, claim 6.).
In regards to claim 17, the method according to claim 6, wherein the configuring the fast master cell group link recovery based on the first information comprises: determining whether an RRC release command is appropriate based on indication information enabling a network side to be aware that the UE has performed a fast MCG link recovery in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs, and measurement information of a serving cell, a neighbor cell, and a target cell measured prior to the handover being initiated or during the handover in case that the RRC release command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information (With respect to method claims having contingent limitations, “…determining whether an RRC release command is appropriate based on indication information … in case that a re-establishment or handover occurs… or during the handover in case that the RRC release command is received subsequent to the transmitting of the MCG failure information…”, that the “…broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B… See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10.” Thus, for this method claim, the only steps that have been determined to be required are those of its parent claim, claim 6.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARELL A HAMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7162. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 5712723795. 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.
/TARELL A HAMPTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights