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 .
Alternative Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). Likewise, the alternative term “at least one of,” followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be determined to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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)(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) 19-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DA SILVA et al (US 2022/0295571)
Regarding claim 19, 25, 31, DA SILVA et al (US 2022/0295571) discloses method applied to a terminal device, the method comprising:
initiating a random access process to a cell managed by a secondary node to obtain a first secondary node random access report (DA SILVA: Fig. 9c/9d ¶323, ¶385, UE initirates a RACH process to a SN i.e. a cell managed by the Secondary Node (SN) to obtain a RACH report for PScell); and
recording the first secondary node random access report in response to a quantity of historical secondary node random access reports recorded by the terminal device being less than a first threshold (DA SILVA: Fig. 9c, ¶323, ¶371, reports RACH report to MN; a maximum number of RACH reports are stored in the UE).
Regarding claim 20, 26, 32, DA SILVA et al (US 2022/0295571) discloses method according to claim 19, further comprising: sending a random access report list to a master node, wherein the random access report list comprises the first secondary node random access report (DA SILVA: ¶380, ¶383, ¶323, report(s) list to a master node where the list of reports reported includes report of a first SN).
Regarding claim 21, 27, 33, DA SILVA discloses method according to claim 20, wherein: the random access report list further comprises one or more of the recorded secondary node random access reports (DA SILVA: ¶354, ¶323, the reports in the reporting message sent to the MN includes a previous/historic value of the RACH report of the SN); and a total quantity of secondary node random access reports comprised in the random access report list is less than or equal to the first threshold (DA SILVA: ¶370, ¶376, a maximum number of RACH reports are stored in the UE; ¶363, ¶369, per cell, there are multiple reports and there are total maximum RACH reports).
Regarding claim 22, 28, 34, DA SILVA discloses method according to claim 21, wherein:
the random access report list further comprises a master node random access report (DA SILVA: ¶363, ¶369, the RACH report list includes a list of master node RA reports i.e. per cell or per cell group such as PCell which is a cell of MN); and
a total quantity of master node random access reports and secondary node random access reports comprised in the random access report list is less than or equal to a second threshold, wherein the second threshold is a total quantity of node random access reports that the terminal device is allowed to record (DA SILVA: ¶370, ¶376, a maximum number of RACH reports are stored in the UE; this number is for all the reports stored including per cell (i.e. SN RA reports and MN RA reports ¶363, ¶369, per cell, there are multiple reports and there are total maximum RACH reports); or
a total quantity of master node random access reports comprised in the random access report list is less than or equal to a third threshold, wherein the third threshold is a total quantity of master node random access reports that the terminal device is allowed to record.
Regarding claim 23, 29, 35, DA SILVA discloses method according to claim 19, further comprising:
initiating a random access process to a cell managed by a master node to obtain a first master node random access report (DA SILVA: Fig. 9d, ¶383, RA tries are initiated towards the MN); and
recording the first master node random access report in response to a sum of the quantity of historical secondary node random access reports and a quantity of historical master node random access reports recorded by the terminal device being less than a second threshold, wherein the second threshold is predefined (DA SILVA: ¶370, ¶376, the RACH reports are logged, at least from MN, in the UE as long as the maximum total (equivalent to sum of all the RA reports including the SN and MN RA reports) of RACH reports is not reached).
Regarding claim 24, 30, 36, DA SILVA discloses a method according to claim 23, further comprising:
receiving second indication information sent by a network side device, wherein the second indication information indicates the terminal device to preferentially record the first master node random access report (DA SILVA: ¶360, the RA report with new information is preferred by the UE to be stored and the new information is indicated in the RAR (equivalent to the second indication information)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document B discloses a method by a wireless device for reporting information associated with an on demand System Information, SI, request includes transmitting, to a network node, information associated with the on-demand SI request. The information indicates whether or not the on-demand SI request was successful.
Document U discloses a technique to improve power consumption in UE and discusses different methods to handle 5G cell measurements in case of frequent SCG failures. Through extensive experiments and simulations, the proposed idea has shown a reduction in power consumption by 29.6%.
Document V discloses an intelligent and efficient mechanism that operates in the transmitting PDCP layer and significantly minimizes the data interruption periods suffered by the application when the UE aggregates data and HOs or failures of the SN occur. It uses LTE/NR testbed experiments to show that the proposed mechanism achieves a high and stable aggregate throughput with near-zero interruption time and data reliability of at least 99.999% without transport layer retransmissions. The experiments are conducted for saturated TCP traffic and under link quality variations based on traces extracted from a Nokia-proprietary system-level simulator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights