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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Lenovo/Wu (WO 2022/021077 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Lenovo).
Regarding claim 1, Lenovo teaches a terminal, comprising a memory (906) and a processor (908), wherein the memory is configured to store a program, and the processor is configured to invoke the program in the memory to cause the terminal to perform:
performing a first handover from a first cell to a second cell for enabling the terminal to perform a first service, wherein the first cell does not support a first service, and the second cell supports the first service (handover from 1st cell in 5G to 2nd cell in either 3G UTRAN or 4G E-UTRAN for voice traffic in par [10,41-45,64,65,73-76,87]); and
in a case that the first handover fails, or radio link failure occurs after the first handover succeeds, transmitting first information, wherein the first information is used for optimizing mobility network parameter setting and/or performing mobility robust optimization (par [52, 61-64, 98-100,103,106,134,149,158,165]).
Regarding claim 2, Lenovo further teaches that in the case that the first handover fails, or the radio link failure occurs after the first handover succeeds, performing cell selection or cell reselection to search for a suitable cell that supports the first service (par [61-64]); and
in a case that the terminal finds the suitable cell, transmitting second information, wherein the second information is used for indicating that the suitable cell is found by the terminal par [61-64]);
in a case that the terminal does not find the suitable cell, transmitting third information, wherein the third information is used for indicating that the suitable cell is not found by the terminal (par [65-66,137, 139, 147, 160]).
Regarding claim 3, Lenovo further teaches that the second information is used for adjusting a threshold for triggering reporting of a measurement report; and the third information is used for adjusting one or more of following parameters: the threshold for triggering reporting of the measurement report, a cell selection parameter, or a cell reselection parameter (par [80-89,160]).
Regarding claim 4, Lenovo further teaches that the second information comprises an identity of the suitable cell (ID of a cell, par [105, 139]).
Regarding claim 5, Lenovo further teaches that the third information comprises one or more of following information: information for indicating that the suitable cell is not found; indication information of the first service; a measurement result of the cell that supports the first service; or a setting parameter for cell selection or cell reselection (par [52, 61-64, 98-100,103,106,134,149,158,165]).
Regarding claim 7, Lenovo further teaches that the terminal obtains the setting parameter for cell selection or cell reselection by using one or more of following messages: dedicated signaling; or a cell system broadcast message (see RRC messaging); par [100, 136-139, 141-149]).
Regarding claim 8, Lenovo further teaches that the second information or the third information is carried in one or more of following messages: a radio link failure report; or a logged measurement report (See RLF report).
Regarding claim 11, Lenovo further teaches that the cell that supports the first service is an evolved universal terrestrial radio access (E-UTRA) cell (See U-TRAN cell).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites a contingent limitation “in a case that that failure of the first handover is caused by failure in contention-based random access and/or failure resulted from that the second cell does not allocate a dedicated random-access resource to the terminal, the first information is further used for preventing another terminal that has a demand for the first service from being handed over to the second cell.”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those functions that must be performed and does not include functions that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
In this case, the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition happening. Thus, the limitation “first information is further used for preventing another terminal that has a demand for the first service from being handed over to the second cell” is not required since the condition “that failure of the first handover is caused by failure in contention-based random access and/or failure resulted from that the second cell does not allocate a dedicated random-access resource to the terminal” is not met in Lenovo as Lenovo does not teach such failures caused by contention-based random access.
Regarding claim 13, Lenovo further teaches that the first information is carried in a radio link failure report (See RLF report).
Regarding claim 14, Lenovo further teaches that the first service is a voice service, and the first handover is an inter-system handover for voice fallback (see par [63,76,87]).
Regarding claim 15, Lenovo teaches a network device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a program, and the processor is configured to invoke the program in the memory to cause the network device to perform: in a case that a first handover fails, or radio link failure occurs after the first handover succeeds, receiving first information, wherein the first information is used for optimizing mobility network parameter setting and/or performing mobility robust optimization, wherein the first handover is a handover of a terminal from a first cell to a second cell for enabling the terminal to perform a first service, the first cell does not support the first service, and the second cell supports the first service.
Regarding claim 16, Lenovo teaches that the first information is carried in a radio link failure report (See the RLF report).
Regarding claim 17, Lenovo further teaches that the first service is a voice service, and the first handover is an inter-system handover for voice fallback (see par[63,76,87]).
Regarding claim 18, Lenovo teaches a communication method, wherein the method comprises: performing, by a terminal, a first handover from a first cell to a second cell for enabling the terminal to perform a first service, wherein the first cell does not support a first service, and the second cell supports the first service; and in a case that the first handover fails, or radio link failure occurs after the first handover succeeds, transmitting, by the terminal, first information, wherein the first information is used for optimizing mobility network parameter setting and/or performing mobility robust optimization.
Regarding claim 19, Lenovo further teaches that the first information is carried in a radio link failure report (See the RLF report).
Regarding claim 20, Lenovo further teaches that the first service is a voice service, and the first handover is an inter-system handover for voice fallback (see par[63,76,87]).
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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenovo (WO 2022/021077 A1) in view of Pecen et al (US 2008/0188228 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Pecen).
Regarding claim 6, Lenovo does not explicitly teach that the setting parameter for cell selection or cell reselection comprises one or more of following parameters: an intra-frequency measurement reference signal received power threshold, an intra-frequency measurement reference signal received quality threshold, an inter-frequency/inter-system measurement reference signal received power threshold, an inter-frequency/inter-system measurement reference signal received quality threshold, a cell minimum receive level, a cell minimum receive level offset, a cell minimum receive level under uplink enhancement, a cell minimum quality level, or a cell minimum quality level offset. However, Pecen teaches using minimum signal threshold as a parameter for cell selection in order to enhance signal quality (see par [800]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to apply Pecen’s teaching of using minimum signal threshold as a parameter for cell selection in Lenovo’s system with the motivation in order to enhance signal quality.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenovo (WO 2022/021077 A1) in view of Hu et al (WO 2015043050 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Hu).
Regarding claim 9, Lenovo does not explicitly teach the logged measurement report used for recording a measurement result of a cell around the terminal that supports the first service. However, Hu teaches such measurement report for recording a measurement result of a cell around the terminal that supports the LC-MTC service (see Hu; 7th aspect; page 11, lines 19-27). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to apply Hu’s teaching of using minimum signal threshold as a parameter for cell selection in Lenovo’s system with the motivation in order to enhance signal quality for corresponding cells.
Regarding claim 10, Lenovo further teaches that the reselection (that triggers the logged measurement) is performed when the handover fails.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al (US 2021/0076438 A1) teaches intra band measurement for cell reselection.
Cheng et al (US 2022/0232503 A1) teaches other measurement parameters for cell selection.
Dong et al (US 2012/0093109 A1) teaches determining contention-based random-access failures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY D VU whose telephone number is (571)272-3155. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00a-to 5:00p Mon-Thurs.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571)272-0734. 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.
HUY D. VU
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights