DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 10/01/2024 and 03/31/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application 10/01/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3gPP TSG RAN WG4 Meeting #101-e “Discussion on RRM requirements for handover with PSCell” sourced from Ericsson, hereinafter Ericsson, further in view of Shah et al. (US 2021/0076416), hereinafter Shah.
Regarding Claim 1, Ericsson teaches: A method, comprising: communicating via a dual connectivity cellular link with a cellular network via at least a first cell and a second cell, wherein the first cell is a primary cell of a master cell group, wherein the second cell is a primary cell of a secondary cell group: “In our view, in case of parallel processing without dependency between target PCell and target PSCell with respect to timing reference, PCell handover and PSCell addition or change are carried out fully as independent parallel procedures. Even in case both PCell and PSCell are unknown, UE shall be capable of conducting cell detection and time/frequency refinement in both cells simultaneously” (Ericsson Page 2 ¶ 1); receiving an indication to perform handover of the primary cell of the master cell group from the first cell to a third cell, wherein the third cell is in a licensed frequency band, and of the primary cell of the secondary cell group from the second cell to a fourth cell, wherein the fourth cell is in an unlicensed frequency band: “It was agreed in RAN4#100e that discussions on RRM requirements for Handover with PSCell when one carrier is subjected to CCA shall focus on the EN-DC to EN-DC scenario. E-UTRA PCell in licensed spectrum, NR PSCell in FR1 unlicensed spectrum (band n46)” (Ericsson Page 7 ¶ 1) and “During the GTW discussions in RAN4#100e the following was agreed concerning handover with PSCell in NR-DC to NR-DC scenario: In HO with PSCell for NR-DC to NR-DC Parallel processing shall be the baseline for delay requirements” (Ericsson Page 1 ¶ 1).
Ericsson does not teach: determining whether to increase a preamble transmission counter for a physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion conflicts in a time domain with a PRACH transmission on the third cell; and determining whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure.
Regarding Claim 1, Shah teaches: determining whether to increase a preamble transmission counter for a physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion conflicts in a time domain with a PRACH transmission on the third cell; and determining whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure: “In case of a preamble collision having occurred in the first message of the RACH procedure, i.e., multiple user equipment have sent the same preamble on the same PRACH resource, the colliding user equipment will receive the same T-CRNTI within the random access response and will also collide in the same uplink resources when transmitting their scheduled transmission in the third step of the RACH procedure” (Shah ¶ 00740) and “There could be, e.g., two cases. In one case, the UE does not increase the preamble transmission counter, if the PHY layer dropped a preamble transmission because of LBT . . . In a second case, the UE increases the preamble transmission counter if the PHY layer dropped a preamble transmission because of LBT” (Shah ¶ 0177 and 0178). In other words, Shah teaches that a LBT procedure is undertaken before a PRACH occasion. If the channel is not clear, or the LBT procedure fails, the UE can optionally increase a preamble transmission counter or not increase a preamble transmission counter according to its configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson with Shah for the purpose of fairly sharing unlicensed spectrum. According to Shah: “Apart from regulatory requirements, this carrier sensing via LBT is one way for fair sharing of the unlicensed spectrum and is thus considered to be a vital feature for fair and friendly operation in the unlicensed spectrum in a single global solution framework” (Shah ¶ 0154).
Regarding Claim 2, Ericsson teaches: The method of claim 1.
Ericsson does not teach: whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion conflicts in the time domain with a PRACH transmission on the third cell is determined based at least in part on configuration information received from the cellular network.
Regarding Claim 2, Shah teaches: whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion conflicts in the time domain with a PRACH transmission on the third cell is determined based at least in part on configuration information received from the cellular network: “The system information can be received by all UEs in the radio cell and can be used to operate the preamble transmission counter according to the above-described improved random access procedure. One particular implementation can reuse the configuration already provided by the 5G NR in 3GPP TS 38.331, v15.3.0, section 6.3.2 RACH-ConfigGeneric information element incorporated herein by reference” (Shah ¶ 0232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson with Shah for the purpose of fairly sharing unlicensed spectrum. According to Shah: “Apart from regulatory requirements, this carrier sensing via LBT is one way for fair sharing of the unlicensed spectrum and is thus considered to be a vital feature for fair and friendly operation in the unlicensed spectrum in a single global solution framework” (Shah ¶ 0154).
Regarding Claim 3, Ericsson teaches: The method of claim 1.
Ericsson does not teach: whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion conflicts in the time domain with a PRACH transmission on the third cell is determined based at least in part on one or more third generation partnership project (3GPP) technical specifications.
Regarding Claim 3, Shah teaches: whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion conflicts in the time domain with a PRACH transmission on the third cell is determined based at least in part on one or more third generation partnership project (3GPP) technical specifications: “The system information can be received by all UEs in the radio cell and can be used to operate the preamble transmission counter according to the above-described improved random access procedure. One particular implementation can reuse the configuration already provided by the 5G NR in 3GPP TS 38.331, v15.3.0, section 6.3.2 RACH-ConfigGeneric information element incorporated herein by reference” (Shah ¶ 0232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson with Shah for the purpose of fairly sharing unlicensed spectrum. According to Shah: “Apart from regulatory requirements, this carrier sensing via LBT is one way for fair sharing of the unlicensed spectrum and is thus considered to be a vital feature for fair and friendly operation in the unlicensed spectrum in a single global solution framework” (Shah ¶ 0154).
Regarding Claim 4, Ericsson teaches: The method claim 1.
Ericsson does not teach: whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure is determined based at least in part on configuration information received from the cellular network.
Regarding Claim 4, Shah teaches: whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure is determined based at least in part on configuration information received from the cellular network: “The system information can be received by all UEs in the radio cell and can be used to operate the preamble transmission counter according to the above-described improved random access procedure. One particular implementation can reuse the configuration already provided by the 5G NR in 3GPP TS 38.331, v15.3.0, section 6.3.2 RACH-ConfigGeneric information element incorporated herein by reference” (Shah ¶ 0232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson with Shah for the purpose of fairly sharing unlicensed spectrum. According to Shah: “Apart from regulatory requirements, this carrier sensing via LBT is one way for fair sharing of the unlicensed spectrum and is thus considered to be a vital feature for fair and friendly operation in the unlicensed spectrum in a single global solution framework” (Shah ¶ 0154).
Regarding Claim 5, Ericsson teaches: The method claim 1,.
Ericsson does not teach: whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure is determined based at least in part on one or more third generation partnership project (3GPP) technical specifications.
Regarding Claim 5, Shah teaches: whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure is determined based at least in part on one or more third generation partnership project (3GPP) technical specifications: “The system information can be received by all UEs in the radio cell and can be used to operate the preamble transmission counter according to the above-described improved random access procedure. One particular implementation can reuse the configuration already provided by the 5G NR in 3GPP TS 38.331, v15.3.0, section 6.3.2 RACH-ConfigGeneric information element incorporated herein by reference” (Shah ¶ 0232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson with Shah for the purpose of fairly sharing unlicensed spectrum. According to Shah: “Apart from regulatory requirements, this carrier sensing via LBT is one way for fair sharing of the unlicensed spectrum and is thus considered to be a vital feature for fair and friendly operation in the unlicensed spectrum in a single global solution framework” (Shah ¶ 0154).
Regarding Claim 21, Ericsson teaches: perform operations comprising: communicating via a dual connectivity cellular link with a cellular network via at least a first cell and a second cell, wherein the first cell is a primary cell of a master cell group, wherein the second cell is a primary cell of a secondary cell group: “In our view, in case of parallel processing without dependency between target PCell and target PSCell with respect to timing reference, PCell handover and PSCell addition or change are carried out fully as independent parallel procedures. Even in case both PCell and PSCell are unknown, UE shall be capable of conducting cell detection and time/frequency refinement in both cells simultaneously” (Ericsson Page 2 ¶ 1); receiving an indication to perform handover of the primary cell of the master cell group from the first cell to a third cell, wherein the third cell is in a licensed frequency band, and of the primary cell of the secondary cell group from the second cell to a fourth cell, wherein the fourth cell is in an unlicensed frequency band: “It was agreed in RAN4#100e that discussions on RRM requirements for Handover with PSCell when one carrier is subjected to CCA shall focus on the EN-DC to EN-DC scenario. E-UTRA PCell in licensed spectrum, NR PSCell in FR1 unlicensed spectrum (band n46)” (Ericsson Page 7 ¶ 1) and “During the GTW discussions in RAN4#100e the following was agreed concerning handover with PSCell in NR-DC to NR-DC scenario: In HO with PSCell for NR-DC to NR-DC Parallel processing shall be the baseline for delay requirements” (Ericsson Page 1 ¶ 1).
Ericsson does not teach: An apparatus, comprising: a processor configured to, when executing instructions stored in a memory: determining whether to increase a preamble transmission counter for a physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion conflicts in a time domain with a PRACH transmission on the third cell; and determining whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure.
Regarding Claim 21, Shah teaches: An apparatus, comprising: a processor configured to, when executing instructions stored in a memory: “Further, the various embodiments may also be implemented by means of software modules, which are executed by a processor or directly in hardware. Also a combination of software modules and a hardware implementation may be possible. The software modules may be stored on any kind of computer readable storage media, for example, RAM, EPROM, EEPROM, flash memory, registers, hard disks, CD-ROM, DVD, etc” (Shah ¶ 0337) determining whether to increase a preamble transmission counter for a physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion conflicts in a time domain with a PRACH transmission on the third cell; and determining whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the fourth cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure: “In case of a preamble collision having occurred in the first message of the RACH procedure, i.e., multiple user equipment have sent the same preamble on the same PRACH resource, the colliding user equipment will receive the same T-CRNTI within the random access response and will also collide in the same uplink resources when transmitting their scheduled transmission in the third step of the RACH procedure” (Shah ¶ 00740) and “There could be, e.g., two cases. In one case, the UE does not increase the preamble transmission counter, if the PHY layer dropped a preamble transmission because of LBT . . . In a second case, the UE increases the preamble transmission counter if the PHY layer dropped a preamble transmission because of LBT” (Shah ¶ 0177 and 0178). In other words, Shah teaches that a LBT procedure is undertaken before a PRACH occasion. If the channel is not clear, or the LBT procedure fails, the UE can optionally increase a preamble transmission counter or not increase a preamble transmission counter according to its configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson with Shah for the purpose of fairly sharing unlicensed spectrum. According to Shah: “Apart from regulatory requirements, this carrier sensing via LBT is one way for fair sharing of the unlicensed spectrum and is thus considered to be a vital feature for fair and friendly operation in the unlicensed spectrum in a single global solution framework” (Shah ¶ 0154).
Regarding Claim 24, Ericsson teaches: A method, comprising: by a cellular base station: establishing a cellular link with a wireless device; providing configuration information to the wireless device for dual connectivity handover, wherein the dual connectivity handover includes handover of a primary cell of a master cell group from a source primary cell to a target primary cell: “In our view, in case of parallel processing without dependency between target PCell and target PSCell with respect to timing reference, PCell handover and PSCell addition or change are carried out fully as independent parallel procedures. Even in case both PCell and PSCell are unknown, UE shall be capable of conducting cell detection and time/frequency refinement in both cells simultaneously” (Ericsson Page 2 ¶ 1); wherein the target primary cell is in a licensed frequency band, wherein the dual connectivity handover also includes handover of a primary cell of a secondary cell group from a source primary secondary cell to a target primary secondary cell, wherein the target primary secondary cell is in an unlicensed frequency band: “It was agreed in RAN4#100e that discussions on RRM requirements for Handover with PSCell when one carrier is subjected to CCA shall focus on the EN-DC to EN-DC scenario. E-UTRA PCell in licensed spectrum, NR PSCell in FR1 unlicensed spectrum (band n46)” (Ericsson Page 7 ¶ 1) and “During the GTW discussions in RAN4#100e the following was agreed concerning handover with PSCell in NR-DC to NR-DC scenario: In HO with PSCell for NR-DC to NR-DC Parallel processing shall be the baseline for delay requirements” (Ericsson Page 1 ¶ 1).
Ericsson does not teach: wherein the configuration information for dual connectivity handover indicates whether to increase a preamble transmission counter for a physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion on the target primary secondary cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable due to a conflict in a time domain with a PRACH transmission on the target primary cell; and wherein the configuration information for dual connectivity handover indicates whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the target primary secondary cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure.
Regarding Claim 1, Shah teaches: wherein the configuration information for dual connectivity handover indicates whether to increase a preamble transmission counter for a physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion on the target primary secondary cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable due to a conflict in a time domain with a PRACH transmission on the target primary cell; and wherein the configuration information for dual connectivity handover indicates whether to increase the preamble transmission counter for a PRACH occasion on the target primary secondary cell based at least in part on whether the PRACH occasion is unavailable for PRACH transmission due to an unsuccessful uplink listen before talk procedure: “In case of a preamble collision having occurred in the first message of the RACH procedure, i.e., multiple user equipment have sent the same preamble on the same PRACH resource, the colliding user equipment will receive the same T-CRNTI within the random access response and will also collide in the same uplink resources when transmitting their scheduled transmission in the third step of the RACH procedure” (Shah ¶ 00740) and “There could be, e.g., two cases. In one case, the UE does not increase the preamble transmission counter, if the PHY layer dropped a preamble transmission because of LBT . . . In a second case, the UE increases the preamble transmission counter if the PHY layer dropped a preamble transmission because of LBT” (Shah ¶ 0177 and 0178). In other words, Shah teaches that a LBT procedure is undertaken before a PRACH occasion. If the channel is not clear, or the LBT procedure fails, the UE can optionally increase a preamble transmission counter or not increase a preamble transmission counter according to its configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson with Shah for the purpose of fairly sharing unlicensed spectrum. According to Shah: “Apart from regulatory requirements, this carrier sensing via LBT is one way for fair sharing of the unlicensed spectrum and is thus considered to be a vital feature for fair and friendly operation in the unlicensed spectrum in a single global solution framework” (Shah ¶ 0154).
Claims 8-10, 22-23, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson and Shah as applied to claims 1, 21, and 24 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0124568), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 8, Ericsson and Shah teaches: The method of claim 1.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: wherein the method further comprises: determining that a timer associated with the handover of the primary cell of the secondary cell group from the second cell to the fourth cell has reached expiry; and determining to perform radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell on symbols that are not overlapped with control or data channels, RACH occasions, or downlink or uplink reference signals of the third cell.
Regarding Claim 8, Wu teaches: wherein the method further comprises: determining that a timer associated with the handover of the primary cell of the secondary cell group from the second cell to the fourth cell has reached expiry; and determining to perform radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell on symbols that are not overlapped with control or data channels, RACH occasions, or downlink or uplink reference signals of the third cell: “The UE 102 then performs a second random access procedure on a PSCell configured by the handover command after completing the first random access procedure. However, the second timer T304 expires 714 before completing the second random access procedure. In response to the second timer T304 expiry, the UE 102 disconnects 716 from the SN 106B and transmits 718 an SCGFailureInformation message to the MN 104. In response to the SCGFailureInformation message, the MN 104 may perform 720 plural RRC reconfiguration and measurement reporting procedures with the UE 102 to configure 722 the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and the SN 106B again or configure the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and SN 106A” (Wu ¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 9, Ericsson and Shah teaches: The method of claim 1.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: the method further comprises: determining that a timer associated with the handover of the primary cell of the secondary cell group from the second cell to the fourth cell has reached expiry; and determining to perform radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell on symbols that are not overlapped with RACH occasions of the third cell.
Regarding Claim 9, Wu teaches: the method further comprises: determining that a timer associated with the handover of the primary cell of the secondary cell group from the second cell to the fourth cell has reached expiry; and determining to perform radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell on symbols that are not overlapped with RACH occasions of the third cell: “The UE 102 then performs a second random access procedure on a PSCell configured by the handover command after completing the first random access procedure. However, the second timer T304 expires 714 before completing the second random access procedure. In response to the second timer T304 expiry, the UE 102 disconnects 716 from the SN 106B and transmits 718 an SCGFailureInformation message to the MN 104. In response to the SCGFailureInformation message, the MN 104 may perform 720 plural RRC reconfiguration and measurement reporting procedures with the UE 102 to configure 722 the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and the SN 106B again or configure the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and SN 106A” (Wu ¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 10, Ericsson and Shah teach: The method of claim 9.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: the method further comprises: transmitting a message to the cellular network indicating that addition of the fourth cell as the primary cell of the secondary cell group has failed, wherein the radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell is performed after the message indicating that addition of the fourth cell as the primary cell of the secondary cell group has failed is transmitted to the cellular network.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu teaches: the method further comprises: transmitting a message to the cellular network indicating that addition of the fourth cell as the primary cell of the secondary cell group has failed, wherein the radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell is performed after the message indicating that addition of the fourth cell as the primary cell of the secondary cell group has failed is transmitted to the cellular network: “The UE 102 then performs a second random access procedure on a PSCell configured by the handover command after completing the first random access procedure. However, the second timer T304 expires 714 before completing the second random access procedure. In response to the second timer T304 expiry, the UE 102 disconnects 716 from the SN 106B and transmits 718 an SCGFailureInformation message to the MN 104. In response to the SCGFailureInformation message, the MN 104 may perform 720 plural RRC reconfiguration and measurement reporting procedures with the UE 102 to configure 722 the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and the SN 106B again or configure the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and SN 106A” (Wu ¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 22, Ericsson and Shah teaches: The apparatus of claim 21.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: the operations further comprising: determining that a timer associated with the handover of the primary cell of the secondary cell group from the second cell to the fourth cell has reached expiry; and determining to perform radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell on symbols that are not overlapped with RACH occasions of the third cell.
Regarding Claim 22, Wu teaches: the operations further comprising: determining that a timer associated with the handover of the primary cell of the secondary cell group from the second cell to the fourth cell has reached expiry; and determining to perform radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell on symbols that are not overlapped with RACH occasions of the third cell: “The UE 102 then performs a second random access procedure on a PSCell configured by the handover command after completing the first random access procedure. However, the second timer T304 expires 714 before completing the second random access procedure. In response to the second timer T304 expiry, the UE 102 disconnects 716 from the SN 106B and transmits 718 an SCGFailureInformation message to the MN 104. In response to the SCGFailureInformation message, the MN 104 may perform 720 plural RRC reconfiguration and measurement reporting procedures with the UE 102 to configure 722 the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and the SN 106B again or configure the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and SN 106A” (Wu ¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 23, Ericsson and Shah teach: The apparatus of claim 22.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: the operations further comprising: transmitting a message to the cellular network indicating that addition of the fourth cell as the primary cell of the secondary cell group has failed, wherein the radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell is performed after the message indicating that addition of the fourth cell as the primary cell of the secondary cell group has failed is transmitted to the cellular network.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu teaches: the method further comprises: transmitting a message to the cellular network indicating that addition of the fourth cell as the primary cell of the secondary cell group has failed, wherein the radio frequency re-tuning from the fourth cell is performed after the message indicating that addition of the fourth cell as the primary cell of the secondary cell group has failed is transmitted to the cellular network: “The UE 102 then performs a second random access procedure on a PSCell configured by the handover command after completing the first random access procedure. However, the second timer T304 expires 714 before completing the second random access procedure. In response to the second timer T304 expiry, the UE 102 disconnects 716 from the SN 106B and transmits 718 an SCGFailureInformation message to the MN 104. In response to the SCGFailureInformation message, the MN 104 may perform 720 plural RRC reconfiguration and measurement reporting procedures with the UE 102 to configure 722 the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and the SN 106B again or configure the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and SN 106A” (Wu ¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 27, Ericsson and Shah teaches: The method of 24.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: the method further comprises: receiving a message from the wireless device indicating that primary secondary cell addition failure has occurred.
Regarding Claim 27, Wu teaches: the method further comprises: receiving a message from the wireless device indicating that primary secondary cell addition failure has occurred: “The UE 102 then performs a second random access procedure on a PSCell configured by the handover command after completing the first random access procedure. However, the second timer T304 expires 714 before completing the second random access procedure. In response to the second timer T304 expiry, the UE 102 disconnects 716 from the SN 106B and transmits 718 an SCGFailureInformation message to the MN 104. In response to the SCGFailureInformation message, the MN 104 may perform 720 plural RRC reconfiguration and measurement reporting procedures with the UE 102 to configure 722 the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and the SN 106B again or configure the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and SN 106A” (Wu ¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 28, Ericsson and Shah teach: The method of 24.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: the method further comprises: providing configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs.
Regarding Claim 28, Wu teaches: the method further comprises: providing configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs: “In some implementations, the UE 102 may release the TDM pattern configuration in response to detecting the MCG failure. In response to releasing the TDM pattern configuration, the UE 102 may transmit in a slot on the SCG when a corresponding subframe on the MCG is a UL subframe in the TDM pattern configuration. In response to receiving the MCGFailureInformation message, the SN 106B in one implementation may release the TDM pattern configuration and configure the UE 102 to transmit in a slot on the SCG when a corresponding subframe (i.e., corresponding to the slot) on the MCG is a UL subframe in the TDM pattern configuration” (Wu ¶ 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 28, Ericsson and Shah teach: The method of 24.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: the method further comprises: providing configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs.
Regarding Claim 28, Wu teaches: the method further comprises: providing configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs: “In some implementations, the UE 102 may release the TDM pattern configuration in response to detecting the MCG failure. In response to releasing the TDM pattern configuration, the UE 102 may transmit in a slot on the SCG when a corresponding subframe on the MCG is a UL subframe in the TDM pattern configuration. In response to receiving the MCGFailureInformation message, the SN 106B in one implementation may release the TDM pattern configuration and configure the UE 102 to transmit in a slot on the SCG when a corresponding subframe (i.e., corresponding to the slot) on the MCG is a UL subframe in the TDM pattern configuration” (Wu ¶ 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 29, Ericsson and Shah teach: The method of 28.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: the configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs indicates that the radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell can be performed on symbols that are not overlapped with control or data channels, random access channel (RACH) occasions, or downlink or uplink reference signals of the target primary cell.
Regarding Claim 28, Wu teaches: the configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs indicates that the radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell can be performed on symbols that are not overlapped with control or data channels, random access channel (RACH) occasions, or downlink or uplink reference signals of the target primary cell: “The UE 102 then performs a second random access procedure on a PSCell configured by the handover command after completing the first random access procedure. However, the second timer T304 expires 714 before completing the second random access procedure. In response to the second timer T304 expiry, the UE 102 disconnects 716 from the SN 106B and transmits 718 an SCGFailureInformation message to the MN 104. In response to the SCGFailureInformation message, the MN 104 may perform 720 plural RRC reconfiguration and measurement reporting procedures with the UE 102 to configure 722 the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and the SN 106B again or configure the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and SN 106A” (Wu ¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 29, Ericsson and Shah teaches: The method of claim 28.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: the configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs indicates that the radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell can be performed on symbols that are not overlapped with control or data channels, random access channel (RACH) occasions, or downlink or uplink reference signals of the target primary cell
Regarding Claim 29, Wu teaches: the configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs indicates that the radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell can be performed on symbols that are not overlapped with control or data channels, random access channel (RACH) occasions, or downlink or uplink reference signals of the target primary cell: “The UE 102 then performs a second random access procedure on a PSCell configured by the handover command after completing the first random access procedure. However, the second timer T304 expires 714 before completing the second random access procedure. In response to the second timer T304 expiry, the UE 102 disconnects 716 from the SN 106B and transmits 718 an SCGFailureInformation message to the MN 104. In response to the SCGFailureInformation message, the MN 104 may perform 720 plural RRC reconfiguration and measurement reporting procedures with the UE 102 to configure 722 the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and the SN 106B again or configure the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and SN 106A” (Wu ¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Regarding Claim 30, Ericsson and Shah teaches: The method of claim 28.
Ericsson and Shah do not teach: wherein the configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs indicates that the radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell can be performed on symbols that are not overlapped with random access channel (RACH) occasions of the target primary cell.
Regarding Claim 30, Wu teaches: wherein the configuration information indicating allowed symbol timing for performing radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell when primary secondary cell addition failure occurs indicates that the radio frequency re-tuning from the target primary secondary cell can be performed on symbols that are not overlapped with random access channel (RACH) occasions of the target primary cell: “The UE 102 then performs a second random access procedure on a PSCell configured by the handover command after completing the first random access procedure. However, the second timer T304 expires 714 before completing the second random access procedure. In response to the second timer T304 expiry, the UE 102 disconnects 716 from the SN 106B and transmits 718 an SCGFailureInformation message to the MN 104. In response to the SCGFailureInformation message, the MN 104 may perform 720 plural RRC reconfiguration and measurement reporting procedures with the UE 102 to configure 722 the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and the SN 106B again or configure the UE 102 in DC with the MN 104 and SN 106A” (Wu ¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ericsson and Shah with Wu for the purpose of addressing problems with data transmissions between a UE and a MN and a SN: “To address the problems described above with reference to FIGS. 4-8, such as interrupting data transmission between the UE 102 and the MN 104/SN 106B, the amount of time it takes to perform the RRC reconfiguration procedures and measurement report procedures, deadlock between the UE 102 and the MN 104” (Wu ¶ 0084).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 25-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/B.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights