DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the claims filed on 10/01/2024.
Application No: 18/853, 284.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note: The examiner has tried to contact applicant representative, but no response received.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 (and similarly other claim 17) is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 2 is drafted with nested multiple logical “ORs”. With multiple logical “ORs”, inventive path is not clearly disclosed. It recommended to reduce Multiple “ORs” and nested limitations with multiple “ORs”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 11 has “at least one of” statement with multiple logical “ORs”. The timing limitation is covered in previous dependent claims. It is recommended to keep only limitation, namely, a time when an elevation angle between a radio access network (RAN) node that generates the associated cell and the UE is smaller than or equal to lower than an elevation angle threshold; or a time when an elevation angle between the RAN node and a reference location of the associated cell is smaller than or equal to the elevation angle threshold, for further review.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U. S. C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb et al. US 20230262546 A1) in view of Bergqvist et al. (US 20230292195 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Teyeb teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory ([0203] Turning to FIG. 11, a method at a wireless communication device (e.g., user Equipment—UE), capable of performing a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover, from a source node/cell to a target node/cell, where the source and target nodes could be the same or different is illustrated), and configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a first base station, a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover configuration to switch from a source cell of the first base station to a target cell ([0015], Fig. 2, e.g. This means that the SN (i.e. a Secondary Node (SN, or SeNB or base station)) can also control the UE; sometimes without the knowledge of the MN (i.e. a master node (MN or MeNB)) but often the SN need to coordinate with the MN. In LTE-DC, the RRC decisions are always coming from the MN (MN to UE). Note however, the SN still decides the configuration of the SN, since it is only the SN itself that has knowledge of what kind of resources, capabilities etc. the SN has (i.e. base station sends DAPS handover configuration to the UE, UE receives handover configuration). [0024] When CA is configured, the UE only has one RRC connection with the network. Further, at RRC connection establishment/re-establishment/handover, one serving cell provides the NAS mobility information, and at RRC connection re-establishment/handover, one serving cell provides the security input. [0025] The reconfiguration, addition and removal of SCells can be performed by RRC. At intra-RAT handover, RRC can also add, remove, or reconfigure SCells for usage with the target Pcell (i.e. perform handover by switching from source to the target cell) . [0049] The source node (I.e. a base station) sends a DAPS handover command to the UE, indicating which DRBs are part of the DAPS handover. [0050] At reception of HO Command with an indicator to perform DAPS handover); and
perform a failure handling operation associated with the DAPS handover based on an expiry time of an associated cell ([0028] A UE may lose coverage to the cell to which the UE is currently connected. This could occur in a situation when a UE enters a fading dip, or that a handover was needed as described above, but the handover failed. This is particularly true if the “handover region” is very short). [0030] Upon detection that the physical layer experiences problems according to criteria defined in TS 38.133, the physical layer sends an indication using the RRC protocol of the detected problems (out-of-sync indication). After a configurable number (N310) of such consecutive indications, a timer (T310) is started. If the link quality is not improved (recovered) while T310 is running (i.e. there are no N311 consecutive “in-sync” indications from the physical layer), a radio link failure is declared in the UE (i.e. perform a handover failure handling operation based on an expiry time of an associated cell)).
Teyeb teaches a method enabled to perform a Dual Active Protocol Stack handover (HO) from a source node/cell to a target node/cell. Responsive to detecting a radio link failure, RLF, on a source link between the device and the source node/cell, a RLF report related to the source node/cell is generated. However Teyeb differs from the claimed invention in not specifically and clearly describing wherein
the expiry time of the associated cell includes at least one of a first expiry time of the source cell or a second expiry time of the target cell.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor, Bergqvist teaches wherein
the expiry time of the associated cell includes at least one of a first expiry time of the source cell or a second expiry time of the target cell ([0159], e.g. When a UE is performing the evaluation of conditional handover (CHO) conditions, it may receive a handover command, which may trigger a DAPS handover. If this DAPS handover fails, e.g., upon expiry of timer T304 (i.e. a second expiry time of the target cell), but no radio link failure has been determined for the source cell, the UE will generally fall back to the source cell, and transmit a Failure Information message to the source cell. [0186] If the UE detects a failure (e.g., expiry of timer T304) for a DAPS HO, i.e. a handover configured with at least one DAPS bearer, and no radio link failure has been determined for the source cell, the UE will perform a fallback to the source cell, which includes reverting back to the previous configuration (as described in 3GPP TS 38.331, see 5.3.5.8.3) (i.e. In short: T304 is tied to the target cell in the handover process, not the source cell. It supervises the UE’s execution of the handover to that target cell and determines whether the handover succeeds or fails)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the method of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb. The motivation to combine references is that the combined method provides improve techniques related to the DAPS handover, that reduces the handover interruption but comes at the cost of increased UE complexity as the UE needs to be able to simultaneously receive/transmit from/to two cells at the same time. In practice this may require that the UE is equipped with dual transmit (TX)/receive (RX) chains. The dual TX/RX chains potentially also allow DAPS handover to be supported in other handover scenarios, such as inter-frequency handover (See Bergqvist [0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bergqvist further teaches wherein performing the failure handling operation includes at least one of:
in response to the first expiry time of the source cell being reached during the DAPS handover, performing at least one of the following:
terminating data transmission, signaling transmission, data reception, and signaling reception in the source cell; discarding a radio resource control (RRC) configuration associated with the source cell; releasing a connection to the source cell; declaring a radio link failure (RLF) in the source cell;
precluding the source cell in search of a suitable cell in response to a DAPS handover failure or an RLF failure in the target cell; or precluding the source cell in a cell selection or cell reselection when the UE is in an idle state in response to a DAPS handover failure or an RLF failure in the target cell; or in response to the second expiry time of the target cell being reached during the DAPS handover, performing at least one of the following:
terminating data transmission, signaling transmission, data reception, and signaling reception in the target cell; discarding an RRC configuration associated with the target cell; terminating a random access to the target cell; declaring a DAPS handover failure; declaring an RLF in the target cell; precluding the target cell in search of a suitable cell in response to an RLF or a connection release in the source cell or in response to a DAPS handover failure; precluding the target cell in a cell selection or cell reselection when the UE is in an idle state in response to an RLF or a connection release in the source cell or in response to a DAPS handover failure; storing a reason for a DAPS handover failure in response to the DAPS handover failure; reporting a reason for a DAPS handover failure to the source cell in response to the DAPS handover failure and a connection established to the source cell; or reporting a reason for a DAPS handover failure to another cell in response to the DAPS handover failure and a connection established to the another cell ([0159], e.g. When a UE is performing the evaluation of conditional handover (CHO) conditions, it may receive a handover command, which may trigger a DAPS handover. If this DAPS handover fails, e.g., upon expiry of timer T304, but no radio link failure has been determined for the source cell, the UE will generally fall back to the source cell, and transmit a Failure Information message to the source cell (i.e. declaring a radio link failure (RLF) in the source cell).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Teyeb further teaches wherein the reason for a DAPS handover failure includes at least one of target cell movement or target cell expiry ([0067], e.g. The method further includes, responsive to detecting a RLF on a target link between the wireless communication device and the target node/cell, generating (1105) a RLF report related to the target node/cell. The method further includes including (1109) an indication on a subsequent uplink radio resource control, RRC, message to a network node that the wireless communication device has one or more RLF reports related to DAPS HO failure. The method further includes responsive to receiving a request from the network node to send the one or more RLF reports, transmitting (1111) the one or more RLF reports to the network node (i.e. Handover failure report includes reason for failure or indication, e.g. expiry timer)).
Regarding claim 4, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bergqvist further teaches wherein the expiry time of the associated cell indicates at least one of: an absolute time; a remaining service time threshold; or a time duration ([0056], e.g. for example, that the UE should keep monitoring possible out-of-sync indications, whether the RLC retransmissions with the source exceed the threshold, etc. (i.e. expiry time of the associated cell indicates a remaining service time threshold)).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Teyeb further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to start a timer based on the time duration in response to the UE determining the time duration or receiving the time duration ([0106], e.g. The UE shall: [0107] 1> if dapsConfig is configured for any DRB, upon receiving N310 consecutive “out-of-sync” indications for the source from lower layers while T304 is running [0108] 2> start timer T310 for the source. [0109] 1> upon receiving N310 consecutive “out-of-sync” indications for the SpCell from lower layers while neither T300, T301, T304, T311 nor T319 are running: [0110] 2> start timer T310 for the corresponding SpCell (i.e. the UE to start a timer based on the time duration)).
Regarding claim 6, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Teyeb further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive the expiry time of the associated cell ([0031], e.g. The UE reads the timer-values from system information broadcasted in the cell. Alternatively, it is possible to configure the UE with UE-specific values of the timers and constants using dedicated signaling, i.e. where specific values are given to specific UEs with messages directed only to each specific UE (i.e. configured to cause the UE to receive the expiry time of the associated cell)).
Regarding claim 7, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Teyeb further teaches wherein receiving the expiry time of the associated cell comprises at least one of:
receiving broadcast information indicating the first expiry time in the source cell; receiving broadcast information indicating the second expiry time in the target cell; receiving a signaling message indicating the expiry time of the associated cell from the first base station ; or receiving a signaling message indicating the second expiry time of the target cell from a second base station that the target cell belongs to via the first base station ([0031], e.g. The UE reads the timer-values from system information broadcasted in the cell (i.e. receiving broadcast information indicating the first expiry time in the source cell)).
Regarding claim 8, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Bergqvist further teaches wherein the expiry time of the associated cell is based on at least one of: a serving time of the associated cell; a propagation delay between the UE and a base station that the associated cell belongs to; or a reference propagation delay in the associated cell ([0381], e.g. In certain embodiments, measurements can involve proprietary UE signaling facilitating host computer 1710's measurements of throughput, propagation times, latency and the like. The measurements can be implemented in that software 1711, 1731 causes messages to be transmitted, in particular empty or ‘dummy’ messages, using OTT connection 1750 while it monitors propagation times (I.e. expiry time of the associated cell is based a propagation delay between the UE and a base station)).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 9, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bergqvist further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to determine the expiry time of the associated cell ([0161], e.g. This method still further comprises subsequently discontinuing evaluation of the execution conditions for the one or more conditional reconfigurations, in response to a successful handover. This discontinuing of the evaluation may be more specifically in response to for example, any of: completing a random access procedure in the target cell, releasing the source cell upon completion of the handover, and stopping of a timer in response to successful handover (i.e. configured to cause the UE to determine the expiry time of the associated cell and stopped it on completion of the handover)).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 10, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Bergqvist further teaches wherein the expiry time of the associated cell is based on at least one of: a serving time of the associated cell; a propagation delay between the UE and the base station that the associated cell belongs to; or a time when the UE determines the expiry time of the associated cell ([0381], e.g. In certain embodiments, measurements can involve proprietary UE signaling facilitating host computer 1710's measurements of throughput, propagation times, latency and the like. The measurements can be implemented in that software 1711, 1731 causes messages to be transmitted, in particular empty or ‘dummy’ messages, using OTT connection 1750 while it monitors propagation times (I.e. expiry time of the associated cell is based a propagation delay between the UE and a base station)).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 11, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim 10. Bergqvist further teaches wherein the serving time of the associated cell comprises at least one of: a stop serving time of the associated cell; a time when an elevation angle between a radio access network (RAN) node that generates the associated cell and the UE is smaller than or equal to lower than an elevation angle threshold; or a time when an elevation angle between the RAN node and a reference location of the associated cell is smaller than or equal to the elevation angle threshold ([0161], e.g. This method still further comprises subsequently discontinuing evaluation of the execution conditions for the one or more conditional reconfigurations, in response to a successful handover. This discontinuing of the evaluation may be more specifically in response to for example, any of: completing a random access procedure in the target cell, releasing the source cell upon completion of the handover, and stopping of a timer in response to successful handover (i.e. configured to cause the UE to determine the expiry time of the associated cell and stopped it on completion of the handover)).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Teyeb teaches a base station, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (0098] FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating elements of a radio access network RAN node 900 (also referred to as a network node, base station, eNodeB/eNB, gNodeB/gNB, etc.) of a Radio Access Network (RAN) configured to provide cellular communication, … The network node may also include processing circuitry 403 (also referred to as a processor, e.g., corresponding to processing circuitry 1370) coupled to the transceiver circuitry, and memory circuitry 905, .. The memory circuitry 905 may include computer readable program code that when executed by the processing circuitry 903 causes the processing circuitry to perform operations), and configured to cause the base station to:
determine an expiry time of a cell ([0031], e.g. The UE reads the timer-values from system information broadcasted in the cell. Alternatively, it is possible to configure the UE with UE-specific values of the timers and constants using dedicated signaling, i.e. where specific values are given to specific UEs with messages directed only to each specific UE (i.e. Base station determine an expiry timer of a cell and transmit timer value in a message);
wherein the cell is a source cell or a target cell for a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover ([0045] , e.g. The mechanism proposed in rel-16 is known as Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover. DAPS enables the continued transmission/reception to/from the source cell even after receiving the handover request and simultaneous reception of user data from the source cell and the target cell. Once the random access procedure and synchronization is performed to the target cell, UL data can additionally be sent to the target cell. Data transmission/reception to the source cell is stopped once the UE gets a message from the target cell indicating the DAPS handover is done (I.e. the cell is a source cell or a target cell for a dual active protocol stack)).
Teyeb teaches a method enabled to perform a Dual Active Protocol Stack handover (HO) from a source node/cell to a target node/cell. Responsive to detecting a radio link failure, RLF, on a source link between the device and the source node/cell, a RLF report related to the source node/cell is generated. However Teyeb differs from the claimed invention in not specifically and clearly describing wherein
transmit the expiry time to a user equipment (UE).
However, in the analogous field of endeavor, Bergqvist teaches wherein
transmit the expiry time to a user equipment (UE) ([0185], e.g. The received HO command may include a DAPS configuration for at least one bearer (i.e. HO command from a base station to the UE includes expiry time parameter) , thus triggering a DAPS HO, and upon applying the message the UE then starts to execute the DAPS HO and stops evaluations of conditional reconfiguration(s) (e.g. CHO)). [0198] This document also describes the evaluation of CHO conditions. This may correspond to the actions as defined in 3GPP TS 38.331, “5.3.5.13.4 Conditional reconfiguration evaluation”, as follows: .. [0206] NOTE: Up to 2 MeasId can be configured for each condReconfigId. The conditional handover event of the 2 MeasId may have the same or different event conditions, triggering quantity, time to trigger, and triggering threshold (i.e. transmit the expiry time to a user equipment). [0287] Then, upon detecting a HO failure for the DAPS HO (e.g., by detecting that timer T304 expires for the HO that is configured with DAPS for at least one bearer (i.e. Base station transmitted expiry timer T304 value in the DAPS HO command to the UE)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the method of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb. The motivation to combine references is that the combined method provides improve techniques related to the DAPS handover, that reduces the handover interruption but comes at the cost of increased UE complexity as the UE needs to be able to simultaneously receive/transmit from/to two cells at the same time. In practice this may require that the UE is equipped with dual transmit (TX)/receive (RX) chains. The dual TX/RX chains potentially also allow DAPS handover to be supported in other handover scenarios, such as inter-frequency handover (See Bergqvist [0029]).
Regarding claim 13, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim12. Bergqvist further teaches wherein the expiry time indicates at least one of: an absolute time; a remaining service time threshold; or a time duration ([0056], e.g. for example, that the UE should keep monitoring possible out-of-sync indications, whether the RLC retransmissions with the source exceed the threshold, etc. (i.e. expiry time of the associated cell indicates a remaining service time threshold)).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 14, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim12. Bergqvist further teaches wherein the expiry time is determined based on at least one of: a serving time of the cell; a propagation delay between the UE and the base station that the cell belongs to; or a reference propagation delay in the cell ([0381], e.g. In certain embodiments, measurements can involve proprietary UE signaling facilitating host computer 1710's measurements of throughput, propagation times, latency and the like. The measurements can be implemented in that software 1711, 1731 causes messages to be transmitted, in particular empty or ‘dummy’ messages, using OTT connection 1750 while it monitors propagation times (I.e. expiry time of the associated cell is based a propagation delay between the UE and a base station)).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 15, Teyeb teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) ([0203] Turning to FIG. 11, a method at a wireless communication device (e.g., user Equipment—UE), capable of performing a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover, from a source node/cell to a target node/cell, where the source and target nodes could be the same or different is illustrated), the method comprising:
receiving, from a first base station , a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover configuration to switch from a source cell of the first base station to a target cell ([0015], Fig. 2, e.g. This means that the SN (i.e. a Secondary Node (SN, or SeNB or base station)) can also control the UE; sometimes without the knowledge of the MN (i.e. a master node (MN or MeNB)) but often the SN need to coordinate with the MN. In LTE-DC, the RRC decisions are always coming from the MN (MN to UE). Note however, the SN still decides the configuration of the SN, since it is only the SN itself that has knowledge of what kind of resources, capabilities etc. the SN has (i.e. base station sends DAPS handover configuration to the UE, UE receives handover configuration). [0024] When CA is configured, the UE only has one RRC connection with the network. Further, at RRC connection establishment/re-establishment/handover, one serving cell provides the NAS mobility information, and at RRC connection re-establishment/handover, one serving cell provides the security input. [0025] The reconfiguration, addition and removal of SCells can be performed by RRC. At intra-RAT handover, RRC can also add, remove, or reconfigure SCells for usage with the target Pcell (i.e. perform handover by switching from source to the target cell) . [0049] The source node (I.e. a base station) sends a DAPS handover command to the UE, indicating which DRBs are part of the DAPS handover. [0050] At reception of HO Command with an indicator to perform DAPS handover); and
performing a failure handling operation associated with the DAPS handover based on an expiry time of an associated cell ([0028] A UE may lose coverage to the cell to which the UE is currently connected. This could occur in a situation when a UE enters a fading dip, or that a handover was needed as described above, but the handover failed. This is particularly true if the “handover region” is very short). [0030] Upon detection that the physical layer experiences problems according to criteria defined in TS 38.133, the physical layer sends an indication using the RRC protocol of the detected problems (out-of-sync indication). After a configurable number (N310) of such consecutive indications, a timer (T310) is started. If the link quality is not improved (recovered) while T310 is running (i.e. there are no N311 consecutive “in-sync” indications from the physical layer), a radio link failure is declared in the UE (i.e. perform a handover failure handling operation based on an expiry time of an associated cell)).
Teyeb teaches a method enabled to perform a Dual Active Protocol Stack handover (HO) from a source node/cell to a target node/cell. Responsive to detecting a radio link failure, RLF, on a source link between the device and the source node/cell, a RLF report related to the source node/cell is generated. However Teyeb differs from the claimed invention in not specifically and clearly describing wherein
the expiry time of the associated cell includes at least one of a first expiry time of the source cell or a second expiry time of the target cell.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor, Bergqvist teaches wherein
the expiry time of the associated cell includes at least one of a first expiry time of the source cell or a second expiry time of the target cell ([0159], e.g. When a UE is performing the evaluation of conditional handover (CHO) conditions, it may receive a handover command, which may trigger a DAPS handover. If this DAPS handover fails, e.g., upon expiry of timer T304 (i.e. a second expiry time of the target cell), but no radio link failure has been determined for the source cell, the UE will generally fall back to the source cell, and transmit a Failure Information message to the source cell. [0186] If the UE detects a failure (e.g., expiry of timer T304) for a DAPS HO, i.e. a handover configured with at least one DAPS bearer, and no radio link failure has been determined for the source cell, the UE will perform a fallback to the source cell, which includes reverting back to the previous configuration (as described in 3GPP TS 38.331, see 5.3.5.8.3) (i.e. In short: T304 is tied to the target cell in the handover process, not the source cell. It supervises the UE’s execution of the handover to that target cell and determines whether the handover succeeds or fails)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the method of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb. The motivation to combine references is that the combined method provides improve techniques related to the DAPS handover, that reduces the handover interruption but comes at the cost of increased UE complexity as the UE needs to be able to simultaneously receive/transmit from/to two cells at the same time. In practice this may require that the UE is equipped with dual transmit (TX)/receive (RX) chains. The dual TX/RX chains potentially also allow DAPS handover to be supported in other handover scenarios, such as inter-frequency handover (See Bergqvist [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Teyeb teaches a processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory ([0097] As discussed herein, operations of communication device UE may be performed by processing circuitry 803 and/or transceiver circuitry 801. … Moreover, modules may be stored in memory circuitry 805, and these modules may provide instructions so that when instructions of a module are executed by processing circuitry 803, processing circuitry 803 performs respective operations), and configured to cause the processor to:
receive, from a first base station, a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover configuration to switch from a source cell of the first base station to a target cell ([0015], Fig. 2, e.g. This means that the SN (i.e. a Secondary Node (SN, or SeNB or base station)) can also control the UE; sometimes without the knowledge of the MN (i.e. a master node (MN or MeNB)) but often the SN need to coordinate with the MN. In LTE-DC, the RRC decisions are always coming from the MN (MN to UE). Note however, the SN still decides the configuration of the SN, since it is only the SN itself that has knowledge of what kind of resources, capabilities etc. the SN has (i.e. base station sends DAPS handover configuration to the UE, UE receives handover configuration). [0024] When CA is configured, the UE only has one RRC connection with the network. Further, at RRC connection establishment/re-establishment/handover, one serving cell provides the NAS mobility information, and at RRC connection re-establishment/handover, one serving cell provides the security input. [0025] The reconfiguration, addition and removal of SCells can be performed by RRC. At intra-RAT handover, RRC can also add, remove, or reconfigure SCells for usage with the target Pcell (i.e. perform handover by switching from source to the target cell) . [0049] The source node (I.e. a base station) sends a DAPS handover command to the UE, indicating which DRBs are part of the DAPS handover. [0050] At reception of HO Command with an indicator to perform DAPS handover); and
perform a failure handling operation associated with the DAPS handover based on an expiry time of an associated cell ([0028] A UE may lose coverage to the cell to which the UE is currently connected. This could occur in a situation when a UE enters a fading dip, or that a handover was needed as described above, but the handover failed. This is particularly true if the “handover region” is very short). [0030] Upon detection that the physical layer experiences problems according to criteria defined in TS 38.133, the physical layer sends an indication using the RRC protocol of the detected problems (out-of-sync indication). After a configurable number (N310) of such consecutive indications, a timer (T310) is started. If the link quality is not improved (recovered) while T310 is running (i.e. there are no N311 consecutive “in-sync” indications from the physical layer), a radio link failure is declared in the UE (i.e. perform a handover failure handling operation based on an expiry time of an associated cell)).
Teyeb teaches a method enabled to perform a Dual Active Protocol Stack handover (HO) from a source node/cell to a target node/cell. Responsive to detecting a radio link failure, RLF, on a source link between the device and the source node/cell, a RLF report related to the source node/cell is generated. However Teyeb differs from the claimed invention in not specifically and clearly describing wherein
the expiry time of the associated cell includes at least one of a first expiry time of the source cell or a second expiry time of the target cell.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor, Bergqvist teaches wherein
the expiry time of the associated cell includes at least one of a first expiry time of the source cell or a second expiry time of the target cell ([0159], e.g. When a UE is performing the evaluation of conditional handover (CHO) conditions, it may receive a handover command, which may trigger a DAPS handover. If this DAPS handover fails, e.g., upon expiry of timer T304 (i.e. a second expiry time of the target cell), but no radio link failure has been determined for the source cell, the UE will generally fall back to the source cell, and transmit a Failure Information message to the source cell. [0186] If the UE detects a failure (e.g., expiry of timer T304) for a DAPS HO, i.e. a handover configured with at least one DAPS bearer, and no radio link failure has been determined for the source cell, the UE will perform a fallback to the source cell, which includes reverting back to the previous configuration (as described in 3GPP TS 38.331, see 5.3.5.8.3) (i.e. In short: T304 is tied to the target cell in the handover process, not the source cell. It supervises the UE’s execution of the handover to that target cell and determines whether the handover succeeds or fails)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the method of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb. The motivation to combine references is that the combined method provides improve techniques related to the DAPS handover, that reduces the handover interruption but comes at the cost of increased UE complexity as the UE needs to be able to simultaneously receive/transmit from/to two cells at the same time. In practice this may require that the UE is equipped with dual transmit (TX)/receive (RX) chains. The dual TX/RX chains potentially also allow DAPS handover to be supported in other handover scenarios, such as inter-frequency handover (See Bergqvist [0029]).
Regarding claim 17, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim16. Bergqvist further teaches wherein performing the failure handling operation includes at least one of:
in response to the first expiry time of the source cell being reached during the DAPS handover, performing at least one of the following: terminating data transmission, signaling transmission, data reception, and signaling reception in the source cell; discarding a radio resource control (RRC) configuration associated with the source cell;
releasing a connection to the source cell; declaring a radio link failure (RLF) in the source cell; precluding the source cell in search of a suitable cell in response to a DAPS handover failure or an RLF failure in the target cell; or precluding the source cell in a cell selection or cell reselection when a user equipment (UE) is in an idle state in response to a DAPS handover failure or an RLF failure in the target cell; or in response to the second expiry time of the target cell being reached during the DAPS handover, performing at least one of the following: terminating data transmission, signaling transmission, data reception, and signaling reception in the target cell; discarding an RRC configuration associated with the target cell; terminating a random access to the target cell; declaring a DAPS handover failure; declaring an RLF in the target cell; precluding the target cell in search of a suitable cell in response to an RLF or a connection release in the source cell or in response to a DAPS handover failure; precluding the target cell in a cell selection or cell reselection when the UE is in an idle state in response to an RLF or a connection release in the source cell or in response to a DAPS handover failure; storing a reason for a DAPS handover failure in response to the DAPS handover failure; reporting a reason for a DAPS handover failure to the source cell in response to the DAPS handover failure and a connection established to the source cell; or reporting a reason for a DAPS handover failure to another cell in response to the DAPS handover failure and a connection established to the another cell ([0159], e.g. When a UE is performing the evaluation of conditional handover (CHO) conditions, it may receive a handover command, which may trigger a DAPS handover. If this DAPS handover fails, e.g., upon expiry of timer T304, but no radio link failure has been determined for the source cell, the UE will generally fall back to the source cell, and transmit a Failure Information message to the source cell (i.e. declaring a radio link failure (RLF) in the source cell).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 18, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim17. Teyeb further teaches wherein the reason for a DAPS handover failure includes at least one of target cell movement or target cell expiry ([0067], e.g. The method further includes, responsive to detecting a RLF on a target link between the wireless communication device and the target node/cell, generating (1105) a RLF report related to the target node/cell. The method further includes including (1109) an indication on a subsequent uplink radio resource control, RRC, message to a network node that the wireless communication device has one or more RLF reports related to DAPS HO failure. The method further includes responsive to receiving a request from the network node to send the one or more RLF reports, transmitting (1111) the one or more RLF reports to the network node (i.e. Handover failure report includes reason for failure or indication, e.g. expiry timer)).
Regarding claim 19, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim16. Bergqvist further teaches wherein the expiry time of the associated cell indicates at least one of: an absolute time; a remaining service time threshold; or a time duration ([0056], e.g. for example, that the UE should keep monitoring possible out-of-sync indications, whether the RLC retransmissions with the source exceed the threshold, etc. (i.e. expiry time of the associated cell indicates a remaining service time threshold)).
The motivation to combine reference of Bergqvist within the method of Teyeb before the effective filing date of the invention is that the combined method provides improve techniques for handling connection reconfigurations during dual-active protocol stack (DAPS) handovers. Further, 5G is designed to support, among other things, new use cases requiring ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC), such as factory automation and autonomous driving. To meet the stringent requirements on reliability and latency also during mobility, two new handover types are introduced in 5G Release 16. These two new handover types are called make-before-break handover and conditional handover. The make-before-break handover is also known as Dual Active Protocol Stacks (DAPS) handover (See Bergqvist [0001, 0007]).
Regarding claim 20, Teyeb in view of Bergqvist teaches all the limitations of claim19. Teyeb further teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to start a timer based on the time duration in response to the processor determining the time duration or receiving the time duration ([0106], e.g. The UE shall: [0107] 1> if dapsConfig is configured for any DRB, upon receiving N310 consecutive “out-of-sync” indications for the source from lower layers while T304 is running [0108] 2> start timer T310 for the source. [0109] 1> upon receiving N310 consecutive “out-of-sync” indications for the SpCell from lower layers while neither T300, T301, T304, T311 nor T319 are running: [0110] 2> start timer T310 for the corresponding SpCell (i.e. the UE to start a timer based on the time duration)).
Prior Art Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent
to applicant’s disclosure.
JUNG; Sunghoon (US-20200314714-A1) - SOURCE CELL RELEASE INDICATION FOR DUAL STACK MOBILITY.
You; Xin (US-11425614-B2) - Method for daps handover, user equipment, and computer readable medium.
Parichehrehteroujeni; Ali (US-20220386204-A1) - DUAL ACTIVE PROTOCOL STACK HANDOVER REPORTS.
Ramachandra; Pradeepa (US-20230269647-A1) - Control Plane Aspects of Dual Active Protocol Stack Handover Report.
WALLENTIN PONTUS (WO-2021091450-A1) - FALLBACK TO SOURCE CELL DURING DUAL ACTIVE PROTOCOL STACK HANDOVER.
ORSINO ANTONINO (ORSINO ANTONINO) - DUAL ACTIVE PROTOCOL STACK AND CONNECTION/LINK FAILURE HANDLING.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahendra Patel whose telephone number is (571) 270-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM (EST) .
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, Anthony Addy can be reached on (571) 272-7795(571) 272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) ? If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHENDRA R PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights