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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 14th, 2025, and March 18th, 2026 has been considered and made of record in the application file history.
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)(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, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al., U.S. Publication Number 2023/0422135 A1 (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Wu discloses a user equipment (UE) and a processor for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Wu, FIG. 10, apparatus 1000 comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 1001 and at least one processor 1006 coupled thereto; ¶[0219]–[0221] disclosing that apparatus 1000 may function as a UE, and the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to implement methods with respect to the UEs) configured to cause the UE to:
receive configuration associated with a handover procedure in an unlicensed spectrum (Wu, ¶[0100]: “when UE 601 is connected to BS 602a, BS 602a may transmit a set of trigger conditions for transmitting assistant information to UE 601”; ¶[0056]: “a UE or a BS may operate in both a licensed spectrum and an unlicensed spectrum (also referred to as ‘shared spectrum’)”; ¶[0057]: “For a transmission on an unlicensed spectrum…a channel access procedure (e.g., a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure) may be required before transmission on the unlicensed spectrum”; ¶[0105]: trigger condition (1-4) specifically addresses “consistent uplink listen-before-talk (LBT) failures…detected on at least one UL bandwidth part (BWP) of a serving cell” during the handover procedure, thereby associating the configuration with a handover procedure in an unlicensed spectrum),
wherein the configuration indicates one or more trigger conditions associated with a successful handover report for the handover procedure that has been successfully completed (Wu, ¶ [0091]–[0095]: “the UE may be configured with a trigger condition(s) to compile the successful handover report. In this way, such report would be triggered only when the condition(s) is met”; ¶[0100]: BS transmits “a set of trigger conditions for transmitting assistant information”; ¶[0157]: “The above assistant information are assistant information associated with successful handover triggered by a handover command, and may be also referred to as a successful handover report”; ¶[0074]: “more robust mobility can be provided by reporting failure events observed during successful handovers”); and
store successful handover related information in the successful handover report in response to fulfillment of at least one of the one or more trigger conditions (Wu, ¶[0141]–[0142]: “UE 601 may store assistant information related to the successful handover”; ¶[0208], operation 815: “the UE may store assistant information related to the successful handover to the target cell”; ¶[0143]: “in response to at least one of the set of trigger conditions for transmitting assistant information being met, UE 601 may transmit an indication that assistant information is available”).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Wu teaches the UE, wherein the successful handover-related information includes at least one of the following:
an identifier of an UL BWP in a source cell where an LBT procedure is successful;
an identifier of an UL BWP in the source cell where LBT fails in physical (PHY) layer or medium access control (MAC) layer before the LBT procedure is successful (See Wu, ¶[0151]: “at least one ID of at least one UL BWP of a serving cell (e.g., primary cell) of the UE on which consistent uplink LBT failures are detected” (This maps to the claimed “an identifier of an UL BWP in the source cell where LBT fails in physical (PHY) layer or medium access control (MAC) layer before the LBT procedure is successful,” as consistent LBT failures are detected at the PHY/MAC layer of the source cell before successful handover completion. See also ¶ [0161] disclosing the same for DAPS handover scenarios);
a total number of UL BWPs in the source cell where LBT fails in PHY layer or MAC layer before the LBT procedure is successful;
an identifier of an UL BWP in a target cell where an LBT procedure is successful;
an identifier of an UL BWP in the target cell where LBT fails in PHY layer or MAC layer before the LBT procedure is successful;
a total number of UL BWPs in the target cell where LBT fails in PHY layer or MAC layer before the LBT procedure is successful; a period of time elapsed since a last handover execution until a successful LBT procedure with the target cell; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until a successful LBT procedure with the source cell; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until UL data transmission with the source cell; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until preamble transmission; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until MSG3 transmission; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until MSGA transmission; a period of time elapsed since the successful LBT procedure with the target cell until the handover procedure has been successfully completed; a period of time elapsed since the successful LBT procedure with the source cell until the handover procedure has been successfully completed; or an indication indicating an RLF in the source cell not due to an LBT failure, wherein the RLF occurred at the source cell during a DAPS handover procedure while timer T304 is running.
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses a radio access network (RAN) node, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Wu, FIG. 10, apparatus 1000 comprising processor 1006 and non-transitory computer-readable medium 1001; ¶[0219]–[0222]: “the non-transitory computer-readable medium 1001 may have stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause a processor to implement the method with respect to the BSs as described above”) configured to cause the RAN node to:
generate configuration associated with a handover procedure in an unlicensed spectrum, wherein the configuration indicates one or more trigger conditions associated with a successful handover report for the handover procedure that has been successfully completed (Wu, ¶[0100]: “BS 602a may transmit a set of trigger conditions for transmitting assistant information to UE 601”; ¶[0091]: “the UE may be configured with a trigger condition(s) to compile the successful handover report”; the BS generates/determines the set of trigger conditions including LBT-related condition (1-4) per ¶[0105] which is specific to unlicensed spectrum handover operation); and
transmit the configuration associated with the handover procedure (Wu, ¶ [0100]: “BS 602a may transmit a set of trigger conditions for transmitting assistant information to UE 601”; ¶[0139], operation 610: BS configures UE with measurement report configuration, which may include the trigger conditions).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 7. In addition, Wu teaches the RAN, wherein in the case that the RAN node is a target node, the processor is further configured to perform at least one of the following: receive a successful handover report from a user equipment (UE) or a third RAN node; or modify configuration associated with LBT based on the successful handover report (See Wu, ¶[0145], operation 617: “in response to the UE information request message, UE 601 may transmit a UE information response message including the assistant information to BS 602b”; ¶[0213], operation 911: “a BS (first BS) may receive, from a UE, assistant information related to a successful handover of the UE from another BS (second BS) to the first BS”; BS 602b is the target BS receiving the successful handover report from UE 601).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 7. In addition, Wu teaches the RAN, wherein in the case that the RAN node is a source node, the processor is further configured to perform at least one of the following: receive a successful handover report from a target RAN node or a third RAN node; or modify configuration associated with LBT based on the successful handover report (See Wu, ¶[0168], operation 618: “in response to receiving the assistant information, BS 602b may transmit an Xn message to the source BS (e.g., BS 602a). The Xn message may include the report from UE 601”; ¶ [0216], operation 913: “the first BS may transmit an Xn message to the second BS in response to the reception of the assistant information”; the source BS 602a receives the report from the target BS 602b via the Xn interface).
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 7. In addition, Wu teaches the RAN, wherein successful handover related information includes at least one of the following: an identifier of an UL BWP in a source cell where an LBT procedure is successful; an identifier of an UL BWP in the source cell where LBT fails in physical (PHY) layer or medium access control (MAC) layer before the LBT procedure is successful (See Wu, ¶[0151]: “at least one ID of at least one UL BWP of a serving cell (e.g., primary cell) of the UE on which consistent uplink LBT failures are detected” (This maps to the claimed “an identifier of an UL BWP in the source cell where LBT fails in physical (PHY) layer or medium access control (MAC) layer before the LBT procedure is successful,” as consistent LBT failures are detected at the PHY/MAC layer of the source cell before successful handover completion. See also ¶[0161] disclosing the same for DAPS handover scenarios); a total number of UL BWPs in the source cell where LBT fails in PHY layer or MAC layer before the LBT procedure is successful; an identifier of an UL BWP in a target cell where an LBT procedure is successful; an identifier of an UL BWP in the target cell where LBT fails in PHY layer or MAC layer before the LBT procedure is successful; a total number of UL BWPs in the target cell where LBT fails in PHY layer or MAC layer before the LBT procedure is successful; a period of time elapsed since a last handover execution until a successful LBT procedure with the target cell; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until a successful LBT procedure with the source cell; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until UL data transmission with the source cell; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until preamble transmission; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until MSG3 transmission; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until MSGA transmission; a period of time elapsed since the successful LBT procedure with the target cell until the handover procedure has been successfully completed; a period of time elapsed since the successful LBT procedure with the source cell until the handover procedure has been successfully completed; or an indication indicating an RLF in the source cell not due to an LBT failure, wherein the RLF occurred at the source cell during a DAPS handover procedure while timer T304 is running.
Regarding claim 15, Wu discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (see Wu ¶ [0100] and fig. 8), the method comprising:
receiving configuration associated with a handover procedure in an unlicensed spectrum (Wu, ¶[0100]: “when UE 601 is connected ¶ [ BS 602a, BS 602a may transmit a set of trigger conditions for transmitting assistant information to UE 601”; ¶[0056]: “a UE or a BS may operate in both a licensed spectrum and an unlicensed spectrum (also referred to as ‘shared spectrum’)”; ¶[0057]: “For a transmission on an unlicensed spectrum…a channel access procedure (e.g., a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure) may be required before transmission on the unlicensed spectrum”; ¶[0105]: trigger condition (1-4) specifically addresses “consistent uplink listen-before-talk (LBT) failures…detected on at least one UL bandwidth part (BWP) of a serving cell” during the handover procedure, thereby associating the configuration with a handover procedure in an unlicensed spectrum), wherein the configuration indicates one or more trigger conditions associated with a handover report for the handover procedure that has been successfully completed (Wu, ¶[0091]–[0095]: “the UE may be configured with a trigger condition(s) to compile the successful handover report. In this way, such report would be triggered only when the condition(s) is met”; ¶[0100]: BS transmits “a set of trigger conditions for transmitting assistant information”; ¶[0157]: “The above assistant information are assistant information associated with successful handover triggered by a handover command, and may be also referred to as a successful handover report”; ¶[0074]: “more robust mobility can be provided by reporting failure events observed during successful handovers”); and
storing successful handover related information in a successful handover report in response to fulfillment of at least one of the one or more trigger conditions (Wu, ¶[0141]–[0142]: “UE 601 may store assistant information related to the successful handover”; ¶[0208], operation 815: “the UE may store assistant information related to the successful handover to the target cell”; ¶[0143]: “in response to at least one of the set of trigger conditions for transmitting assistant information being met, UE 601 may transmit an indication that assistant information is available”).
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 16. In addition, Wu teaches the processor, wherein the successful handover related information includes at least one of the following: an identifier of an UL BWP in a source cell where an LBT procedure is successful; an identifier of an UL BWP in the source cell where LBT fails in physical (PHY) layer or medium access control (MAC) layer before the LBT procedure is successful (See Wu, ¶[0151]: “at least one ID of at least one UL BWP of a serving cell (e.g., primary cell) of the UE on which consistent uplink LBT failures are detected” (This maps to the claimed “an identifier of an UL BWP in the source cell where LBT fails in physical (PHY) layer or medium access control (MAC) layer before the LBT procedure is successful,” as consistent LBT failures are detected at the PHY/MAC layer of the source cell before successful handover completion. See also ¶[0161] disclosing the same for DAPS handover scenarios); a total number of UL BWPs in the source cell where LBT fails in PHY layer or MAC layer before the LBT procedure is successful; an identifier of an UL BWP in a target cell where an LBT procedure is successful; an identifier of an UL BWP in the target cell where LBT fails in PHY layer or MAC layer before the LBT procedure is successful; a total number of UL BWPs in the target cell where LBT fails in PHY layer or MAC layer before the LBT procedure is successful; a period of time elapsed since a last handover execution until a successful LBT procedure with the target cell; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until a successful LBT procedure with the source cell; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until UL data transmission with the source cell; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until preamble transmission; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until MSG3 transmission; a period of time elapsed since the last handover execution until MSGA transmission; a period of time elapsed since the successful LBT procedure with the target cell until the handover procedure has been successfully completed; a period of time elapsed since the successful LBT procedure with the source cell until the handover procedure has been successfully completed; or an indication indicating an RLF in the source cell not due to an LBT failure, wherein the RLF occurred at the source cell during a DAPS handover procedure while timer T304 is running.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 8, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., U.S. Publication Number 2023/0422135 A1 (hereinafter Wu) as applied to claims 1, 7 and 16 above and further in view of Wang et al., U.S. Publication Number 2024/0049098 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 17, Wu discloses all limitations of claims 1, 7 and 16 as set forth above. Wu further discloses trigger conditions related to timers T304, T310, T312, consistent LBT failures on UL BWPs, and source link status during DAPS handover (Wu, ¶ [0087]–[0088] and [0093][0094]).
Wu does not explicitly disclose the specific trigger condition: "a radio link failure (RLF) in the source cell not due to an LBT failure, wherein the RLF occurred at the source cell during a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover procedure while timer T304 is running."
Wang, in the same field of endeavor (successful handover reporting for mobility robustness optimization in NR; Wang, ¶[0001], [0037]), teaches that an RLF on the source cell detected during a DAPS handover is a triggering condition for the successful handover report (Wang, ¶[0075]: "if a source RLF happens during the DAPS handover, it may mean that 0 ms handover interruption cannot be achieved by the DAPS handover. Therefore, it may be desirable for the terminal device 120 to trigger the successful handover report in response to the source RLF during the DAPS handover"; ¶ [0126], Claim 5: "the third type of triggering conditions comprises: an RLF on the first cell is detected by the terminal device"). Wang further teaches that this trigger enables the network to "improve future DAPS handover procedures related to the source cell 115 and/or the target cell 135" (Wang, ¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu's DAPS handover trigger conditions to include an RLF in the source cell not due to LBT failure during DAPS while T304 is running, as taught by Wang, because: (1) Wu already recognizes that source link status during DAPS is relevant to handover reporting and monitors source radio quality during the DAPS procedure (Wu, ¶[0049]–[0050], [0137], [0166]); (2) Wu separately categorizes LBT-caused failures (Wu, ¶[0057], [0105]) from other radio link monitoring failures (Wu, ¶[0087], [0092]–[0095]), demonstrating that a POSITA would understand non-LBT RLF as a distinct condition; (3) Wang explicitly teaches that source RLF during DAPS is a desirable trigger because it indicates handover performance degradation (Wang, ¶[0075]–[0076]); and (4) the combination yields predictable results of enabling network optimization of DAPS handover scenarios where non-LBT radio degradation compromises source connectivity.
Regarding Claim 8, Wu discloses all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above and further discloses that consistent LBT failures on UL BWPs are a relevant trigger condition.
Wu does not explicitly disclose a ratio between the number of target-cell UL BWPs with LBT failure and total UL BWPs for RA procedure being lower than a threshold.
Wang teaches that the network evaluates LBT performance on a per-BWP basis and that the degree of congestion is relevant to optimization decisions, including allocating fewer BWPs where LBT failures occurred (Wang, ¶ [0087]–[0088]).
It would have been obvious to modify Wu's LBT-related trigger to employ a ratio of affected BWPs to total BWPs being lower than a threshold because: (1) Wu already conditions RLF determination on whether LBT failures affect all configured BWPs (Wu, ¶[0057]); (2) Wang teaches per-BWP evaluation and proportion-based assessment (Wang, ¶[0087]–[0088]); and (3) expressing the condition as a ratio normalizes the metric across different cell configurations, yielding a more meaningful and predictable threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramachandra et al., U.S. Publication Number 2024/0172062 A1 discloses reporting INTER-RAT mobility failures.
Parichehrehteroujeni et al., U.S. Publication Number 2025/0106720 A1 discloses logging and reporting multiple random access procedure information while performing dual active protocol stack handover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Anthony Addy whose telephone number is (571) 272-7795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 8:00-5:00.
SPE 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.
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.
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights