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 .
Priority
The instant application claims foreign priority to 202210510815.9, filed 05/11/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted, IDS - 01/31/2025 and 08/15/2026. The submission in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
(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 1-26, 29-32 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Kim et al. (US20230262540A1) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding Claim 21,
Kim discloses, ‘A method applied to a terminal device, comprising:
separately communicating with a first network device and a second network device, wherein the first network device manages a first master cell group (MCG), the second network device manages a first secondary cell group (SCG), and an MCG link recovery function is configured for the first SCG’ ( Method performed by a wireless device served by a MN and a SN comprises receives, a MCG recovery configuration (disclosure Claim 1). The wireless device is configured with serving cells comprises the MCG/SCG [0125, 0147] and in Fig. 9. The MCG recovery configured and the terminal trigger an MCG recovery procedure transmitted to the NW uses SCG [0235].);
And discloses, ‘determining that a radio link failure (RLF) occurs in the first MCG’ (The terminal detects RLF in MCG [0251]);
And discloses, ‘and sending a first RLF report to a third network device, wherein the first RLF report is related to whether link recovery for the first MCG succeeds.’ (report the MCG failure to SCG during the first MCG recovery procedure [0259]. the terminal trigger an MCG fast recovery procedure transmitted to NW via SCG [0235]. Perform cell selection to select candidate cell as RRC-reestablishment and recovery procedure [0262].)
Regarding Claim 22,
‘The method according to claim 21’ (disclosed above),
And discloses, ‘wherein in response to that the link recovery for the first MCG fails, the first RLF report indicates a cause of a link recovery failure.’ ([0251].)
Regarding Claim 23,
‘The method according to claim 22’ (disclosed above),
And discloses, ‘wherein the cause of the link recovery failure comprises one or more of: the first SCG is added, the first SCG is changed, or transmission of the first SCG is suspended.’ (SCG as primary secondary cell [0147], the primary/secondary cell addition/change [0206] and [0207].)
Regarding Claim 24,
‘The method according to claim 23’ (disclosed above),
And discloses, ‘wherein the method further comprises:
in response to that the first SCG is added or changed or the transmission of the first SCG is suspended, determining not to perform the link recovery for the first MCG.’ (determination of the MCG recovery [0233].)
Regarding Claim 25,
‘The method according to claim 21’ (disclosed above),
And discloses, ‘wherein the method further comprises:
sending RLF information of the first MCG to the second network device by using the first SCG’ (send to the NW uses SCG [0235].);
‘and in response to that a response message for the RLF information of the first MCG is not received within first preset duration, determining that the link recovery for the first MCG fails.’ (Determination of the MCG recovery within a time period [0233-0234].)
Regarding Claim 26,
‘The method according to claim 21’ (disclosed above),
And discloses, ‘wherein the first RLF report indicates one or more of: a cause of a link recovery failure, indication information indicating whether RLF information of the first MCG is successfully sent to the second network device by using the first SCG, first time information, or the RLF information of the first SCG, and
wherein the first time information indicates that a first running time of a first timer is equal to preset duration of the first timer, and the first running time is duration from time when the terminal device sends the RLF information of the first MCG to the second network device by using the first SCG to time when the terminal device initiates a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure.’ (When performing the MCG-failure procedure includes timer is running perform the reconfiguration-sync till the determination the recovery succeeds [0224-0233]. Disclosure claim 1 and claim 2)
Regarding Claim 29,
‘The method according to claim 21’ (disclosed above),
And discloses, ‘wherein in response to that the link recovery for the first MCG succeeds, the first RLF report comprises second time information, the second time information indicates second running time of a first timer, the second running time is less than preset duration of the first timer, and the second running time is duration from time when the terminal device sends RLF information of the first MCG to the second network device by using the first SCG to time when the terminal device receives a response message from the second network device.’ (timer for the MCG recovery procedure includes the start timer disclosure [0211], Claim 1 and Claim 2.)
Regarding Claim 30,
Similar to Claim 21 disclosed above, ‘An apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more processors to run instructions, enabling the apparatus to:
separately communicate with a first network device and a second network device, wherein the first network device manages a first master cell group (MCG), the second network device manages a first secondary cell group (SCG), and an MCG link recovery function is configured for the first SCG;
determine that a radio link failure (RLF) occurs in the first MCG; and
send a first RLF report to a third network device, wherein the first RLF report is related to whether link recovery for the first MCG succeeds.’
Regarding Claim 31,
‘The apparatus according to claim 30’ (disclosed above),
Similar to Claim 22 disclosed above, ‘wherein in response to that the link recovery for the first MCG fails, the first RLF report indicates a cause of a link recovery failure.’
Regarding Claim 32,
‘The apparatus according to claim 30,
‘wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
send RLF information of the first MCG to the second network device by using the first SCG; and
in response to that a response message for the RLF information of the first MCG is not received within first preset duration, determine that the link recovery for the first MCG fails.’
Regarding Claim 35,
‘The apparatus according to claim 30’ (disclosed above),
Similar to Claim 29 disclosed above, ‘wherein in response to that the link recovery for the first MCG succeeds, the first RLF report comprises second time information, the second time information indicates second running time of a first timer, the second running time is less than preset duration of the first timer, and the second running time is duration from time when the apparatus sends RLF information of the first MCG to the second network device by using the first SCG to time when the apparatus receives a response message from the second network device.’
Regarding Claim 36,
Similar to Claim 30 disclosed above, ‘A apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more processors to run instructions, enabling the apparatus to:
receive a first radio link failure (RLF) report from a terminal device, wherein the first RLF report is related to whether link recovery for a first master cell group (MCG) succeeds after an RLF occurs in the first MCG, and the terminal device separately communicates with a first network device and a second network device, wherein the first network device manages the first MCG, the second network device manages a first secondary cell group (SCG), and an MCG link recovery function is configured for the first SCG;
Kim discloses, ‘and adjust a network parameter related to the first RLF report based on the first RLF report.’ (The NW provide reconfiguration parameters to add/change primary secondary cell [0172]. To monitor the trigger condition associated to measurement of conditional-reconfiguration and apply Var-conditional-reconfiguration [0186].)
Regarding Claim 37,
‘The apparatus according to claim 36’ (disclosed above),
Similar to Claim 31 disclosed above, ‘wherein the link recovery for the first MCG fails, and wherein the first RLF report indicates a cause of a link recovery failure.’
Regarding Claim 38,
‘The apparatus according to claim 37’ (disclosed above),
Similar to Claim 33 disclosed above, ‘wherein the cause of the link recovery failure comprises one or more of: that the link recovery for the first MCG fails because beam recovery fails after a beam of the first SCG fails, that random access for the first SCG fails, or that a maximum quantity of radio link control (RLC) retransmissions for the first SCG is reached.’
Regarding Claim 39,
‘The apparatus according to claim 36’ (disclosed above),
Similar to Claim 34 disclosed above, ‘wherein RLF information of the first SCG indicates one or more of: identification information of the first SCG, a cause of an RLF that occurs in the first SCG, or a cause of a change failure in the first SCG.’
Regarding Claim 40,
‘The apparatus according to claim 36’ (disclosed above),
Similar to Claim 35 disclosed above, ‘wherein in response to that the link recovery for the first MCG succeeds, the first RLF report comprises second time information, the second time information indicates second running time of a first timer, the second running time is less than preset duration of the first timer, and the second running time is duration from time when the terminal device sends RLF information of the first MCG to the second network device by using the first SCG to time when the terminal device receives a response message sent by the second network device.’
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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
he 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:
• Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
• Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
• Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
• 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 27, 28, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. hereinafter “Wu” in view of et al. (US20230371107A1) hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding Claim 27,
‘The method according to claim 22’ (disclosed above),
Kim didn’t disclose, ‘wherein the cause of the link recovery failure comprises one or more of: that the link recovery for the first MCG fails because beam recovery fails after a beam of the first SCG fails, that random access for the first SCG fails, or that a maximum quantity of radio link control (RLC) retransmissions for the first SCG is reached.’
Wu in the relevant art discloses, for RLF includes beam specific to the UE [0122]. Includes random access, maximum retransmission times of RLC for the SCG, disclosure claim 6.
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Kim and to include
with that of Wu to come up with the claim invention,
Kim discloses, MCG-failure includes random access, maximum number of re-transmission and MCG-RLC [0287]. Kim provides motive to perform the MCG link recovery procedure served by the MCG/SCG to increase the reliability (disclosure Claim 1 and Claim 2) includes the primary/secondary-cell-failure (disclosure Claim 3) [0235] and the NW configured to apply/select candidate cells [0245, 0249, 0261]. Wu complements as part of recovery procedure specify the SCG-link-failure to successfully complete the MCG recovery procedure. That would reduce delay increase reliability.
Regarding Claim 28,
‘The method according to claim 25’ (disclosed above),
Wu discloses, ‘wherein the RLF information of the first SCG indicates one or more of: identification information of the first SCG, a cause of the RLF that occurs in the first SCG, or a cause of a change failure in the first SCG.’ (Wu disclosure Claim 6, Link-SCG-RLF. Motive would be identical to Claim 27 disclosed above.)
Regarding Claim 33,
‘The apparatus according to claim 31’ (disclosed above),
Similar to Claim 27 disclosed above, ‘wherein the cause of the link recovery failure comprises one or more of: that the link recovery for the first MCG fails because beam recovery fails after a beam of the first SCG fails, that random access for the first SCG fails, or that a maximum quantity of radio link control (RLC) retransmissions for the first SCG is reached.’
Regarding Claim 34,
‘The apparatus according to claim 32’ (disclosed above),
Similar to Claim 28 disclosed above, ‘ wherein the RLF information of the first SCG indicates one or more of: identification information of the first SCG, a cause of the RLF that occurs in the first SCG, or a cause of a change failure in the first SCG.’
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; 5G; NR; Multi-connectivity; Overall description; Stage-2 (3GPP TS 37.340 version 16.8.0 Release 16) NR; Multi-connectivity; Overall description; Stage-2 (Year: 2022).
LTE; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification (3GPP TS 36.331 version 16.7.0 Release 16) Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specific (Year: 2022).
(CN-114071551-B) “Method and apparatus in a communication node for wireless communication”
Wenjuan et al. (WO-2023051447-A1) “Master cell group (mcg) recovery method and apparatus, terminal, and readable storage medium”.
Wang et al. (WO2023123432A1) “Wireless communication methods, terminals, and network device”.
Wu et. al. (US20220124568A1) “Managing mcg fast recovery”.
Wu et. al. (US20230284314A1) “Managing Packet-Based Multimedia Network Connections During Master Cell Group Failure”.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Syed Ahmed whose telephone number is (703)-756-5308. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday 9am-6pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached on (571) 272-7969. 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 submission 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.
/S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights