DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, said claim recites "the terminal device no longer sends the indication information after the prohibition timer reaches a preset threshold". It is unclear whether the limitation requires permanent cessation after the timer reaches the threshold, cessation only during a later unrecited timer interval, or non-transmission during the period in which the timer is running. The specification does not make the metes and bounds clear because it both says that the UE "no longer sends" once the threshold is reached and says that the UE may send again when the timer is no longer running.
Suggested amendment is as follows: "starting a prohibition timer, wherein the terminal device refrains from sending further indication information while the prohibition timer is running" or "starting a prohibition timer, wherein, until expiration of the prohibition timer, the terminal device does not send additional indication information"
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 10-13, 18-19 and 22-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2021/0099926, “Chen”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Chen unless otherwise mentioned.
Chen comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method for reporting a successful primary secondary cell (PScell) addition or change report, performed by a terminal device ([0062] “implementations related to conditional PSCell addition (CPA) procedures and conditional PSCell change (CPC) procedures for intra-SN and inter-SN cases are provided in the present disclosure.”), comprising:
sending indication information to a network-side device after a reporting trigger condition is met ([0089] “if a conditional reconfiguration command for PSCell addition/change is executed (e.g., an associated execution condition is satisfied) or the associated conditional reconfiguration is applied by a UE, the UE may send a response/bye message to the PCell (or the MN).”),
wherein the indication information indicates that the terminal device has the successful PScell addition or change report ([0089] “The response/bye message may be used to notify the execution of the conditional reconfiguration command. In some implementations, the response/bye message may include information of at least one of the cell ID of the target PSCell, the target SN, and the conditional reconfiguration command ID, but not limited thereto”, and [0128 and Fig. 2] “In action 224, the UE 202 may send a response message (e.g., an Execution Notification message) to inform the MN 204 that the conditional reconfiguration command is executed/applied.”).
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim at a network-side device corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “to instruct the network-side device to obtain the successful PScell addition or change report” (See Fig. 2 for steps 226 and 228.), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, it is a terminal claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a processor, and a memory having stored therein a computer program, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program” ([0190 and Fig. 9] “a node 900 may include a transceiver 920, a processor 928, a memory 934”, and [0197] “the memory 934 may store computer-readable, computer-executable instructions 932 (e.g., software codes)”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 2, the method according to claim 1, wherein the reporting trigger condition is that the terminal device records relevant information of PScell addition or change into the successful PScell addition or change report ([0089] “the response/bye message may include information of at least one of the cell ID of the target PSCell, the target SN, and the conditional reconfiguration command ID”, and [0128] “In action 224, the UE 202 may send a response message (e.g., an Execution Notification message) to inform the MN 204 that the conditional reconfiguration command is executed/applied.”).
Regarding claim 5, the method according to claim 1, wherein the reporting trigger condition is that the terminal device accesses a network ([0105] “a UE may maintain connection with a source base station (e.g., MN and/or SN, if already in MR-DC mode) after receiving conditional reconfiguration command(s) (or CHO configurations) for PCell change and may start evaluating execution conditions for the candidate cell(s).”), and the successful PScell addition or change report contains relevant information of PScell addition or change ([0132] “In action 230, the UE 202 may synchronize to the target cell in the target SN 208. In one implementation, the UE 202 may complete the inter-SN CPC procedure by sending an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message to target SN 208.”, and aforesaid [0089]).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the method according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 11, respectively, further comprising:
receiving a response message sent by the network-side device ([0124 and Fig. 2] “In action 216, the MN 204 may send to the UE 202 an RRC Reconfiguration message that includes one or more conditional reconfiguration command(s).”),
wherein the response message has a request indication (aforesaid [0124] for “one or more conditional reconfiguration command(s)”); and
sending the successful PScell addition or change report to the network-side device according to the request indication ([0128 and Fig. 2] “In action 224, the UE 202 may send a response message (e.g., an Execution Notification message) to inform the MN 204 that the conditional reconfiguration command is executed/applied.”).
Regarding claim 10, the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
sending capability information of the terminal device to the network-side device ([0115] “a UE may transmit a UE capability report to the NW to indicate that the UE supports SN addition/change for a different RAT by using the conditional reconfiguration.”), wherein the capability information indicates whether the terminal device supports the successful PScell addition or change report or not ([0115] “the UE may transmit the UE capability report to the LTE MN to indicate that the UE supports to add an NR SN by using conditional reconfiguration or the UE supports to change an NR SN by using conditional reconfiguration.”).
Regarding claim 13, the method according to claim 11, further comprising:
receiving capability information of the terminal device sent by the terminal device ([0115] “a UE may transmit a UE capability report to the NW to indicate that the UE supports SN addition/change for a different RAT by using the conditional reconfiguration.”),
wherein the capability information indicates whether the terminal device supports the successful PScell addition or change report or not ([0115] “the UE may transmit the UE capability report to the LTE MN to indicate that the UE supports to add an NR SN by using conditional reconfiguration or the UE supports to change an NR SN by using conditional reconfiguration.”); and
determining, based on the capability information, whether the terminal device is configured to report the successful PScell addition or change report or not ([0124] “In action 216, the MN 204 may send to the UE 202 an RRC Reconfiguration message that includes one or more conditional reconfiguration command(s)”).
Regarding claim 19, a network side communication device, comprising a processor, and a memory having stored therein a computer program, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory to cause the device to perform the method according to claim 11 ([0197] “the memory 934 may store computer-readable, computer-executable instructions 932 (e.g., software codes) that are configured to cause the processor 928 to perform various functions disclosed herein”).
Regarding claim 22, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store instructions that, when executed, cause the method according to claim 1 to be implemented (See [0197 and Fig. 9]).
Regarding claim 23, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store instructions that, when executed, cause the method according to claim 11 to be implemented (See [0197 and Fig. 9]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0099926, “Chen”) in view of Lim et al. (US 2021/0368572, “Lim”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Chen unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, it is noted that while disclosing cell addition, Chen does not specifically teach about a measurement report. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Lim as follows,
the method according to claim 2 and the method according to claim 11, respectively, wherein sending the indication information to the network-side device comprises: sending the indication information via a measurement report ([Lim, 0059] “If the UE 105 determines an SCG failure based on corresponding criteria, the UE 105 may generate an SCG failure report to the MN 405 to report details regarding the SCG failure corresponding to the reference signal measurement. The criteria may include, but are not limited to, a radio link failure (RLF) on PSCell and PSCell change failure. Such a report may include a MeasResultSCG-Failure information element (IE) as an example.”).
Therefore, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to use Lim’s known SCG/PScell measurement reporting format as the carrier for Chen’s PScell execution indication in order to convey PScell specific status information in an established UE to network reporting mechanism, enable the network to identify the relevant SCG/PScell event and related configuration / measurement context, and facilitate subsequent SCG mobility, configuration or resource management action.
Claim(s) 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0099926, “Chen”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0221289, “Lee”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Chen unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that while disclosing cell addition, Chen does not specifically teach about a prohibit timer. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Lee as follows,
the method according to claim 1, after sending the indication information to the network-side device, the method further comprising: starting a prohibition timer ([Lee, 0076] “the UE starts the prohibit timer (e.g. T345) with a timer value set to the overheatingIndicationProhibitTimer.”), wherein the terminal device no longer sends the indication information once after the prohibition timer reaches a preset threshold ([Lee, 0077] “While the prohibit timer is running, the UEAssistanceInformation message for overheating assistance indication is prevented from being transmitted.”, and [Lee, 0105] “when the prohibit timer is not running or expired, the UE transmit the second UE Assistance Information message (S813).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify Chen’s UE conditional PScell Execution Notification procedure to start a prohibit timer after sending the notification and to prevent retransmission of the same or equivalent indication while that timer is active.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0099926, “Chen”) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2023/0269809, “Cheng”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Chen unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, it is noted that while disclosing cell addition, Chen does not specifically teach about a reestablishment completion message. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Cheng as follows;
the method according to claim 5, wherein sending the indication information to the network-side device comprises: sending the indication information via a connection establishment completion message, a connection recovery completion message, or a connection reestablishment completion message ([Cheng, 0114] “the UE may indicate the availability of the PC5 RLF report, for example, in an RRCSetupComplete or RRCReestablishmentComplete message.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to modify the UE of Chen to carry the indication of successful conditional PScell addition/change report availability in an RRCSetupComplete message or an RRCReestablishmentComplete message, as taught by Cheng. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to use Cheng’s completion message report availability indication mechanism for Chen’s successful conditional PScell report because both references concern UE originated reporting to a network side entity regarding a reportable radio condition, and Cheng teaches the known benefit of using an already transmitted RRC completion message to notify the network. The medication would have predictably reduced separate RRC signaling and allowed the network to obtain the relevant report after the UE has established or reestablished RRC connectivity.
Claim(s) 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0099926, “Chen”) in view of ETSI TS 136 331 V11.17.0 (2017-02) (“3GPP”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Chen unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that while disclosing cell addition, Chen does not specifically teach about releasing a report. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by 3GPP as follows;
the method according to claim 7, wherein after sending the successful PScell addition or change report to the network-side device, the method further comprises: releasing the successful PScell addition or change report ([3GPP, Section 5.6.7.3] “discard the connEstFailReport from VarConnEstFailReport upon successful delivery of the UEInformationResponse message confirmed by lower layers”).
Therefore, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to apply the 3GPP report release mechanism to Chen’s successful PScell report because, once the network receives the report, retaining the already delivered report unnecessarily consumes UE memory and risks later transmission of stale or duplicate information. Releasing the report upon successful delivery would have been a predictable application of the known UE report management technique to Chen’s conditional PScell reporting procedure.
Regarding claim 9, the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a time ([3GPP, Section 5.6.5.3] “set timeSinceFailure in VarRLF-Report to the time that elapsed since the last radio link or handover failure in E-UTRA;”) for recording relevant information ([3GPP, Section 5.3.11.3] “store the following radio link failure information in the VarRLF-Report by setting its fields as follows:”) of PScell addition or change into the successful PScell addition or change report (aforesaid [0089]); and releasing the successful PScell addition or change report after the event exceeds a preset time starting from the time for recording the relevant information of the PScell addition or change ([3GPP, Section 5.3.11.3] “The UE may discard the radio link failure information, i.e. release the UE variable VarRLF-Report, 48 hours after the radio link failure is detected, upon power off or upon detach.”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of 3GPP are the same as for claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights