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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “LBT”, in line 10, for listen before talk. The abbreviated “LBT” needs to be defined at least where it is first mentioned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 11, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Da Silva et al. (US 2023/0300654 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Da Silva discloses an operation method of a terminal in a mobile communication system (abstract), comprising: determining whether prediction of a communication failure is needed while performing communication with a base station (Fig. 2 step 202; paragraph [0135]-0171]; [0072]; [0196]; [0202]-[0222]; [0228], and so on; illustrating the determination of predication of failure based on conditions for predication failure, such as T310 while the UE and network node 101 communicate each); in response to determining that prediction of the communication failure is required, performing a communication failure prediction procedure (such as Fig 2. step 203; paragraph [0112], [0173]-[0175]; [0074]; explaining perform prediction failure based on the conditions as indicated above); and in response to predicted occurrence of the communication failure according to a result of performing the communication failure prediction procedure, performing a recovery procedure for the predicted communication failure (Fig 2. step 205; paragraph [0184]; [0099]-[0101]; [0358]-[0359]; [0151]-[0173]; [0181]-[0184]; and so on, describing performing failure prediction procedure in response to the determination of failure prediction occurrence).
Regarding claim 11, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claim is a mere reformulation of claim 1 to define the corresponding terminal, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Da Silva further discloses wherein the communication failure is at least one of a radio link failure (RLF), a random access (RA) procedure failure, a handover failure, a reception failure, or a transmission failure (paragraph [0074]-[0076]; [0129]; [0181]; [0202]; [0225]; [0263]; and so on).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Da silva further discloses wherein the radio link failure is determined to be predicted (paragraph [0202]; illustrates failure parameters correspond to radio link failure) when at least one is predicted among: expiration of a T310 timer in a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell group cell (PSCell), expiration of a T312 timer in the PCell or the PSCell, random access (RA) problem from a master cell group (MCG) medium access control (MAC) layer or a secondary cell group (SCG) MAC layer, reached maximum number of retransmissions from an MCG radio link control (RLC) layer or an SCG RLC layer, or consistent uplink LBT procedure failure from the MCG MAC layer or the SCG MAC layer (paragraph [0172];[0231]-[0235]; [0114]; [0127]; [0141]; [0164]-[0171]; [0215]-[0222]; [0228]; [0231]-[0243]; [0303]-[0306]; and etc.).
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Da Silva further discloses wherein when the communication failure is a radio link failure, the radio link failure is predicted through prediction of radio link monitoring (RLM) out-of-sync (OOS) states (paragraph [0115]; [0137]; [0146]-[0160]; [0157]- [0160]; [0176]-[0177]; [0181]; [0195]; [0210]-[0211]; [0223]-[0225]).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Da Silva further discloses wherein when the communication failure is a radio link failure, the radio link failure is predicted through prediction of a problem of reaching a maximum number of retransmissions in a radio link control (RLC) acknowledged mode (paragraph [0127]; [0167]-[0171]; [0218]-[0222]; ).
Regarding claim 9 and 19, Da Silva discloses wherein when the communication failure is a radio link failure and the recovery procedure for the predicted communication failure is connection re-establishment, the connection re-establishment is performed only when a target of the connection re-establishment is a cell other than a current serving cell (paragraph [0010]; [0015]; [0099]; [0358]; [0425]).
Regarding claim 10 and 20, Da Silva discloses wherein when the communication failure is a radio link failure and a signal quality or signal strength of a current serving cell is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, the recovery procedure for the predicted communication failure is a procedure for requesting resumption of connection to the current serving cell or a procedure for performing a report on the predicted communication failure to the current serving cell (paragraph [0018]-[0020]; [0246]-[0248]; [0251]-[0253]; [0256]-[0258]; [0129]; [0181]-[0182]; [0202]-[0225]; and so on).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Lutchoomun et al. (US 2026/0113100 A1)
Regarding claim 2-3, as applied above, Da Silva discloses performing failure prediction procedure, and receiving configuration information for the communication failure prediction procedure from the base station (paragraph [0061]-[0071]; and etc.).
Da Silva does not disclose the failure prediction procedure is performed using an artificial intelligence/machine learning model.
Lutchoomun teaches the failure prediction procedure is performed using an artificial intelligence/machine learning model, wherein the configuration information includes information on the AI/ML model (paragraph [0089]; [0111]-[0113]; [0122]; [0126]-[0133]; [0137]; [0141]-[0142]; [0162]; [0192]-[0193]; [0196]; [0203]-[0205]; [0209]; [0213]-[0215]; and so on)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the failure prediction procedure is performed using an artificial intelligence/machine learning model, and wherein the configuration information includes information on the AI/ML model as taught by Lutchoomun into Da Silva in order to accurately recover from a communication failure proactively and reduce overhead.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Mondal et al. (US 2022/0007217 A1).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, as applied above, Da Silva discloses the communication failure is a radio link failure. Da Silva does not disclose wherein when the communication failure is a radio link failure, the radio link failure is predicted through prediction of a consistent listen before talk (LBT) procedure failure.
Mondal teaches wherein when the communication failure is a radio link failure, the radio link failure is predicted through prediction of a consistent listen before talk (LBT) procedure failure (paragraph [0055]-[0056]; [0041]-[0045]; [0048]-[0051]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein when the communication failure is a radio link failure, the radio link failure is predicted through prediction of a consistent listen before talk (LBT) procedure failure as taught by Mondal into Da Silva in order to improve resource utilization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights