DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 32, recites the limitation “a second report” in line 2 and “a first report” in line 3. It is unclear as to whether “a second report” in lines 2 and “a first report” in line 3 are related to the “a second report” and “a first report” in claim 28 line 4, if they are the same it is suggested to applicant to change “a second report” in claim 32 line 2 and “a first report” in claim 32 line 3 to -- the second report-- and -- the first report -- respectively. Similar issues exist in claim 42 lines 2-3.
Regarding claim 4, the occurrence of “the downstream node” in line 3 has no antecedent basis.
Claim 33, recites the limitation “the communication circuitry” in line 3. It is unclear as to whether “the communication circuitry” in line 3 is related to the “communication interface circuitry” in line23, if they are the same it is suggested to applicant to change “the communication circuitry” in line 3, to -- the communication interface circuitry --. Similar issues exist in claim 38.
Claims 34-37 and 39-42 are rejected as being dependent of rejected claim(s).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23, 25, 26, 28-31, 33, 35, 36 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al(US 2024/0422633 A1).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Ma ‘633 teaches, a first network node for handling communication in a wireless communications network ([0856], [0949]- [0951], eNBs in a wireless communication network) the first network node comprising communication interface circuitry and processing circuitry operatively coupled to the communication circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to ([1159]- [1163] and Fig. 10, device 1000 includes transceiver 1001 coupled to the processor 1002):
obtain a first report and/or a second report relating to radio performance and/or handover (HO) of a user equipment (UE) ([0141], [0855]- [0864] and Fig. 6, an access node obtaining/receiving SHR and RLF report from a UE, Ma633 also teaches CU transmitting message 1 to DU); and
transmit to a second network node, one or more indication messages ([0884], [0949]-[0953] and Fig. 8, an access node may forward the reports to other network nodes) wherein an indication message is associated with the first report and the second report([0866]-[0875], [0984]-[0991] and Fig. 8, the forwarded report/message maintain an association relationship between the SHR and the RLF report . This association is achieved by including specific indications within the reports, such as a C-RNTI, a serial number or a flag).
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Ma ‘633 teaches all claim limitations, Ma ‘633 further teaches, wherein the one or more indication messages comprise a HO identifier indication uniquely identifying a HO for the UE ([0219], [0487], [0869]-[0874] , configuring the indication message to include specific information that associates SHR and RLF report to ensure they are identified as being relate to the same handover event. The type of information used to create the association includes, serial number, timestamp, flag or C-RNTI).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, Ma ‘633 teaches all claim limitations, Ma ‘633 further teaches, determining that the first and second report relate to the same UE based on a cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) in respective report ([0219], [0487], [0869]-[0874] , configuring the indication message to include specific information that associates SHR and RLF report to ensure they are identified as being relate to the same handover event. The type of information used to create the association includes C-RNTI).
Regarding claims 28 and 38, Ma ‘633 teaches, a second network node for handling communication in a communication network ([0946]-[0951], [1159] an Figs. 8, 10, an access node responsible for SHR analysis that includes a CU and DU. Fig. 8 identifies the DU as the receiving network entity. Device 100 may implement nodes 1-4 or a component thereof which encompasses the DU), the second network node comprising communication interface circuitry and processing circuitry operatively coupled to the communication circuitry ([1159]- [1163] and Fig. 10, device 1000 includes transceiver 1001 coupled to the processor 1002), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
receive from a first network node, one or more indication messages ([0884], [0949]-[0953], [0993] and Fig. 8, DU receiving message 1 from CU, access node forwarding reports to another network node[0884] ), wherein an indication message is associated with a first report and a second report relating to radio performance and/or handover (HO) of a user equipment (UE) ([0866]-[0875], [0984]-[0991] and Fig. 8, the forwarded report/message maintain an association relationship between the SHR and the RLF report . This association is achieved by including specific indications within the reports, such as a C-RNTI, a serial number or a flag).
Regarding claims 29 and 39, Ma ‘633 teaches all claim limitations, Ma ‘633 further teaches, wherein the one or more indication messages comprises a HO identifier indication uniquely identifying a HO for the UE ([0219], [0487], [0869]-[0874] , configuring the indication message to include specific information that associates SHR and RLF report to ensure they are identified as being relate to the same handover event. The type of information used to create the association includes, serial number, timestamp, flag or C-RNTI).
Regarding claims 30 and 40, Ma ‘633 teaches all claim limitations, Ma ‘633 further teaches, performing an action related to the HO of the UE ([0146], [0608]-[0610], [0635]-[0636] and Fig. 6, after a network node receives the handover-related report (SHR and RLF), it analyzes the information to judge problems in the handover process and performs corrective actions).
Regarding claims 31 and 41, Ma ‘633 teaches all claim limitations, Ma ‘633 further teaches, wherein performing the action comprises initiating or performing a correlation to correlate the first and the second report based on the one or more indication messages ([0141], [0865], [0874], [0884], the network nodes perform an action that involves linking the mobility reports to evaluate the handover event. Ma ‘633 states that it is beneficial if the wireless network can correlate the RLF and SHR generated for the same handover event).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma ‘633 in view of Nokia "HO type identifier for failure or UE context identification", Nokia Siemens Networks; 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #76, R3-121224, Prague, Czech Rep, May 21-25, 2012, pages 1-4, IDS submitted by applicant.
Regarding claims 24 and 34, Ma ‘633 teaches all claim limitations except, assigning an identity to the UE, wherein the identity is different than an identity of another UE.
Nokia teaches, assigning an identity to the UE, wherein the identity is different than an identity of another UE (page 2 section 2.2, using specific identifiers to uniquely establish a UE’s identity and context during handover failure reporting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Ma ‘633 by incorporating the teaching of Nokia, since such modification would provide the handover ID which provides the conditions that caused wrong handover can be retrieved without expensive UE context at source after each successful handover, as suggested by Nokia (section 2.1).
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma ‘633 in view of Qualcomm "HO related SON changes", Qualcomm Incorporated; 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #117-e, R2-2203420, Electronic, March 2022, 1-5 IDS submitted by applicant.
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Ma ‘633 teaches all claim limitations except, wherein the indication message is transmitted to the second network node hosting a previous primary cell (PCell) in case of radio link failure (RLF) Report, or a source PCell of a HO, in case of successful HO report (SHR).
Qualcomm teaches, wherein the indication message is transmitted to the second network node hosting a previous primary cell (PCell) in case of radio link failure (RLF) Report, or a source PCell of a HO, in case of successful HO report (SHR)(page 2 section 2.1.1, page 3 section 2.1.1, after the first network node(e.g. the target cell reestablishment cell or reconnect cell) correlates the SHR and RLF report , it transmits the information back to source cell(source PCell)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Ma ‘633 by incorporating the teaching of Qualcomm, since such modification would provide efficient method of correlating SHR and RLF at a network node, as suggested by Qualcomm (page 1, section 2.1.1).
Claims 32 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma ‘633 in view of Ma et al(US 2022/0225126 A1).
Regarding claims 32 and 42, Ma ‘633 teaches all claim limitations except, sending a request to the first network node, requesting whether a second report may be received associated with the same UE, or whether a first report has already been sent.
Ma ‘126 teaches, sending a request to the first network node, requesting whether a second report may be received associated with the same UE, or whether a first report has already been sent ([0404]- [0406], [0413]- [0414], access node sending a report request to another network node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Ma ‘633 by incorporating the teaching of Ma ‘126, since such modification would enable the network to determine whether the wireless signal coverage problem occurs after the access node deactivates the selected cell based on a measurement report of the UE handed over to other cells and/or the information reported by the UE generated by the neighbor cell, as suggested by Ma ‘126([0128]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, which can be found: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; or (3) EFS WEB. Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights