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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/254,530, filed on 12/21/20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/3/25 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “System and Method for Handover After Detecting Radio Link Failure”.
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) 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (US 2021/0068016).
Regarding claim 1, Shi teaches an information transmission method, comprising:
receiving, by User Equipment (UE) or an Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) node, mobility control information (see “The source base station sends the conditional handover command to the UE. The conditional handover command is included in RRCReconfiguration generated by the source base station” [0079] and “One RRCReconfiguration may include conditional handover commands of multiple target cells. That is, the RRCReconfiguration includes a list of target cells for a conditional handover. The list of the target cells for the conditional handover includes frequency information of each target cell and a PCI of each target cell, a conditional handover command of the target cell generated by the target cell, and at least one piece of identifier information indicating a measurement configuration of a "conditional handover execution condition" of the target cell” [0061] wherein the information included in the conditional handover command or RRCReconfiguration reads on the claimed “mobility information”); and
after detecting that a radio link failure occurs on the UE or the IAB node, activating, by the UE or the IAB node, a handover procedure (see Fig. 8, steps S660-S670 and “In this embodiment, after the UE receives an RRCReconfiguration message including a list of targets cells for a conditional handover sent by a source base station, if the UE determines that the beam recovery failure or a wireless link failure occurs in a source cell, the UE selects one target cell for the conditional handover from the list of the targets cells and switches to the target cell” [0100]).
Regarding claim 3, Shi teaches the information transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the activating, by the UE or the IAB node, a handover procedure comprises:
transmitting, by the UE or the IAB node, a random access request to a target serving node according to the received mobility control information (see Fig. 8 S680 “Random access”).
Regarding claim 4, Shi teaches the information transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the mobility control information comprises a Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI), and dedicated Random Access Channel (RACH) resources allocated for the UE or the IAB node (see “The information required by the UE to access the target cell includes random access configuration information for the UE to access the target cell in the manner of random access…” [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Shi teaches the information transmission method according to claim 4, wherein the mobility control information further comprises at least one of:
RACH-related Synchronization Signal (SS) block information, a UE specific Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS), and a system message (conditional handover command) (see “A configuration of each target cell in the configuration list of the target cells includes a CGI of the target cell, a conditional handover command of the target cell, and one piece of the following information: PDU session information successfully admitted on the target cell, or E-RAB information successfully admitted on the target cell” [0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Shi teaches the information transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving, by User Equipment (UE) or an Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) node, mobility control information comprises:
receiving, by the UE or the IAB node, the mobility control information transmitted by a source serving node after the source serving node receives a handover preparation request confirmation information (see Fig. 5, “S340 Handover Command” and Fig. 8, “S640 RRC Reconfiguration” is received after “S330 Handover Request Acknowledge” and “S630 Handover Request Acknowledge”).
Claims 8 and 15 recite subject matter similar to claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 10 and 17 recite subject matter similar to claim 3 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 11 and 18 recite subject matter similar to claim 4 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 12 and 19 recite subject matter similar to claim 5 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 14 recites subject matter similar to claim 7 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2021/0068016) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0028938).
Regarding claim 2, Shi does not explicitly teach the mobility control information comprises handover activation condition information, wherein the handover activation condition information indicates that handover is executed when the radio link failure occurs. In an analogous prior art reference, Park teaches mobility control information (configuration information) comprises handover activation condition information (third handover execution offset), wherein the handover activation condition information indicates that handover is executed when the radio link failure occurs (see “Also, the configuration information may include information indicating a third handover execution offset for a third handover event triggered when an RLF occurs with the serving base station” [0065] and “Referring to FIG. SC, if the terminal detects the RLF for the serving base station in the step S508, the terminal may apply a handover execution offset for the RLF state (S515). For example, the terminal may configure the third handover execution offset indicated by the handover configuration information received from the serving base station as a value for triggering the handover execution event in the RLF state” [0116]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shi to allow the mobility control information to comprise handover activation condition information, wherein the handover activation condition information indicates that handover is executed when the radio link failure occurs, as taught by Park, in order to configure the UE to execute handover in a RLF state thereby reducing data interruption time.
Claims 9 and 16 recite subject matter similar to claim 2 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2021/0068016) in view of Deenoo et al. (US 2020/0154326).
Regarding claim 6, Shi does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility control information further comprises time information for indicating a cycle of transmitting the mobility control information or indicating a validity period of the mobility control information. In an analogous prior art reference, Deenoo teaches mobility control information further comprises time information for indicating a cycle of transmitting the mobility control information or indicating a validity period (timer) of the mobility control information (see “More rules may address a validity of the conditional reconfiguration based on WTRU location or a timer…With a timer, the WTRU may be configured to invalidate the conditional reconfiguration, if the trigger condition is not met or if the WTRU has not applied or executed the particular reconfiguration within the expiry of a timer” [0113]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shi to allow the mobility control information to further comprise time information for indicating a cycle of transmitting the mobility control information or indicating a validity period of the mobility control information, as taught by Deenoo, to allow in order to activate handover at an appropriate or optimal time.
Claims 13 and 20 recite subject matter similar to claim 6 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nam T Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-5970. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/NAM T HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights