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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/09/2025 has been entered. Independent Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Dependent claims have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims are new and have been entered. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/09/2025 on pages 9-10 of applicant’s remark regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 USC § 102. The applicant argues that Naseer-Ul-Islam does not teach the amended claim for the dynamic state information comprises user priority including latency, jitter, and speed, as the independent claims have been amended to say that.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specified challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and Claim 9
The claims recite “the second information indicative of network slicing information via a voice over wireless protocol”. The claim is not clear as to how a protocol can withhold information. For the purposes of examining, Examiner has assumed that the network slicing information contains at least some of the information of the voice over wireless protocol.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected are rejected based upon claim dependency to Claim 1 and Claim 9.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”) in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”).
Regarding Claim 1
Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches a method comprising
based on a determination (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: S515) that a user equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: UE) is to be handed over (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: S515, Handover Decision) from first network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: gNB 1) to second network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: gNB 2), facilitating (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0202 DAPS handover case), by a system comprising a processor (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 9: 201), a first transmission (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: S520) of first information indicative of a handover (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: Handover Request) from the first network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: gNB 1) to the second network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: gNB 2; Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches a DAPS handover, wherein there is an indicated handover request); and facilitating (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: gNB 1 sends S520), by the system, a second transmission (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: S520) of second information indicative of network slicing information (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0208: Specific RAN configuration information) established for the user equipment prior to the handover (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: S520 is before S545), wherein the network slicing information includes user equipment context information (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0208: Specific RAN configuration information), service parameters (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0208: information indicating a delayed UP path switch), and dynamic state information associated with one or more network slices assigned to the user equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0208: DRB profile), wherein the user equipment context information includes the network slicing information retained at the first network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: S520 is sent from the source cell; Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches user equipment information containing configuration information, information about the broader system, and UE-specific profile information being sent from the source cell),
wherein the second transmission (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: S520) is from the first network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: gNB 1) to the second network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: gNB 2; Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches a DAPS handover, wherein there is a configured handover request before there is a handover from the UE from one cell to another), and wherein the network slicing information facilitates preservation (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0127: avoiding the discontinuity of the slice) of the network slicing information for the user equipment during (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0127: during a connection switch, e.g. handover) and after the handover (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0128: handover failure) such that the user equipment resumes a same application (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim) or session (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0128: MNO slice) by default after return from a fallback or the handover (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0128: resume service in cell later on; Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches in the case where the handover system fails, to resume using the previously used cell);
Naseer-Ul-Islam does not explicitly teach
retaining, by the system, the second information indicative of network slicing information via a voice over wireless protocol;
and forwarding, by the system, the second information indicative of network slicing information to the second network equipment via the voice over wireless protocol.
However, Mondal teaches
retaining (Mondal ¶0076: handover), by the system (Mondal Fig. 5: eNB), the second information indicative of network slicing information (Mondal ¶0076: an identifier that uniquely IDs the wireless device, e.g. Old-eNB-UE-X2AP-ID) via a voice over wireless protocol (Mondal ¶0076: VoLTE session; Mondal teaches a system receiving a handover message to be used in a handover);
and forwarding (Mondal Fig. 6: X2_SN_STATUS_TRANSFER), by the system (Mondal Fig. 6: S-eNB), the second information indicative of network slicing information (Mondal ¶0076: an identifier that uniquely IDs the wireless device, e.g. Old-eNB-UE-X2AP) to the second network equipment (Mondal Fig. 6: T-eNB) via the voice over wireless protocol (Mondal ¶0076: VoLTE session; Mondal teaches a handover from one eNB to another eNB system for a VoLTE session using a unique ID for a UE).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, to include an element that teaches a handover from one eNB to another eNB system for a VoLTE session using a unique ID for a UE, as taught by Mondal in ¶0076, to further improve key performance indicators based on information elements pertaining to those messages and improve automated measurement and analysis of end-to-end performance of VoLTE services.
Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal does not explicitly teach
the service parameters comprise fast return priorities and network conditions, and the dynamic state information comprises user priority including latency, jitter, and speed
However, Murgia teaches
the service parameters comprise fast return priorities (Murgia ¶0030: high priority traffic) and network conditions (Murgia ¶0029: one path may have lower latency), and the dynamic state information comprises user priority including latency (Murgia ¶0030: latency), jitter (Murgia ¶0030: jitter), and speed (Murgia ¶0030: ping test; Murgia teaches defining a high priority traffic relating to the path and including information for latency, jitter, and an associated ping test)
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia, to include an element that teaches defining a high priority traffic relating to the path and including information for latency, jitter, and an associated ping test, as taught by Murgia in ¶0029 and ¶0030, to improve virtual private networks by having improve monitoring of additional networks by high priority traffic including redirecting said high priority traffic in the case where the information is not being given the resources that is required of it.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”) in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), further in view of Paladugu (Pub. No.: US 20200154333 A1, hereafter “Paladugu”).
Claim 2
Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia teaches the method as explained above in Claim 1. Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia does not explicitly teach
wherein the determination is a first determination, wherein the handover is a first handover, and wherein the method further comprises: based on a second determination that the user equipment is to be handed over from the second network equipment to third network equipment, facilitating, by the system, a third transmission of third information indicative of a second handover from the second network equipment to the third network equipment; and facilitating, by the system, a fourth transmission of the second information indicative of network slicing information established for the user equipment prior to the first handover, wherein the fourth transmission is from the second network equipment to the third network equipment
However, Paladugu teaches
wherein the determination is a first determination (Paladugu Fig. 3: 310, Event Trigger), wherein the handover (Paladugu Fig. 3: 325, Role Switch) is a first handover (Paladugu Fig. 3: 325, Role Switch), and wherein the method further comprises: based on a second determination (Paladugu Fig. 3: 320, HO Decision) that the user equipment (Paladugu Fig. 3: 115-b, UE) is to be handed over from the second network equipment (Paladugu Fig. 3: 105-c, Base Station-c) to third network equipment (Paladugu Fig. 3: 105-d, Base Station-d), facilitating (Paladugu Fig. 3: 300, Wireless Network), by the system, a third transmission (Paladugu Fig. 3: 365, Role Switch) of third information indicative of a second handover (Paladugu Fig. 3: 360) from the second network equipment (Paladugu Fig. 3: 105-c, Base Station-c) to the third network equipment (Paladugu Fig. 3: 105-d, Base Station-d; Paladugu teaches a handover decision from one base station to another and communication containing relevant information); and facilitating (Paladugu Fig. 3: 300), by the system, a fourth transmission (Paladugu Fig. 3: 365) of the second information indicative of network slicing information (Paladugu Fig. 3: 365, Role Switch Complete) established for the user equipment prior to the first handover (Paladugu Fig. 3: 365, before 375), wherein the fourth transmission (Paladugu Fig. 3: 365) is from the second network equipment (Paladugu Fig. 3: 105-c) to the third network equipment (Paladugu Fig. 3: 105-d; Paladugu teaches a communication between the two network elements to be established before the handover is complete).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia, by way of Paladugu, to include an element that teaches a handover decision from one base station to another and communication containing relevant information and a communication between the two network elements to be established before the handover is complete, as taught by Paladugu in Fig. 3 to more efficiency and reliability for a wireless system for continuous connectivity.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”) in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), further in view of Paladugu (Pub. No.: US 20200154333 A1, hereafter “Paladugu”) and further in view of Kim (Pub. No.: US 20190253944 A1, hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 3
Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia in view of Paladugu teaches the method as explained above in Claim 2. Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia in view of Paladugu does not explicitly teach
wherein the first network equipment and the third network equipment are configured to operate according to a first network communication protocol, and wherein the second network equipment is configured to operate according to a second network communication protocol different than the first network communication protocol
However, Kim teaches
wherein the first network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 125) and the third network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 130) are configured to operate according to a first network communication protocol (Kim Fig. 1: 115), and wherein the second network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 120) is configured to operate according to a second network communication protocol different than the first network communication protocol (Kim Fig. 1: 110; Kim teaches the first and third network use a different protocol than the second network equipment).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia by way of Paladugu, and further with Kim, to include an element that teaches the first and third network use a different protocol than the second network equipment, as taught by Kim in Fig. 1., to better and further optimize wireless communications.
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 6
Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia, even further in view of Paladugu, and further with Kim, teaches the method as explained above in Claim 4.
wherein the first network (Kim Fig. 1: 125) communication protocol is a new radio network communication protocol (Kim Fig. 1: 115), and wherein the second network (Kim Fig. 1: 120) communication protocol is a long term evolution network protocol (Kim Fig. 1: 110; Kim teaches the first network being NR, and the second network being LTE).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia, even by way of Paladugu, and further with Kim, to include an element that teaches the first network being NR, and the second network being LTE, as taught by Kim in Fig. 1., to better and further optimize wireless communications.
Regarding Claim 5
Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia teaches the method as explained above in Claim 4. Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia does not explicitly teach
wherein the first network equipment is configured to operate according to a first network communication protocol, and wherein the second network equipment is configured to operate according to a second network communication protocol different than the first network communication protocol.
However, Kim teaches
wherein the first network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 125) is configured to operate according to a first network communication protocol (Kim Fig. 1: 115), and wherein the second network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 120) is configured to operate according to a second network communication protocol different than the first network communication protocol (Kim Fig. 1: 110; Kim teaches the first network being NR, and the second network being LTE).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia by way of Kim, to include an element that teaches the first network being NR, and the second network being LTE, as taught by Kim in Fig. 1., to better and further optimize wireless communications.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”) in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), further in view of Witherell (Pub.: No.: US 10440665 B1, hereafter “Witherell”).
Regarding Claim 7
Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia teaches the method as explained above in Claim 1. Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia does not explicitly teach
wherein the first network equipment and the second network equipment are configured to operate according to at least a fifth generation network communication protocol and wherein the facilitating of the first transmission and the facilitating of the second transmission are performed concurrently
However, Witherell teaches
wherein the first network equipment (Witherell Fig. 1: 14) and the second network equipment (Witherell Fig. 1: 16) are configured to operate according to at least a fifth generation network communication protocol (Witherell Fig. 1: 16, 5G NB) and wherein the facilitating of the first transmission and the facilitating of the second transmission are performed concurrently (Witherell pg. 15, col. 14, line 36-45: concurrent transmissions; Witherell teaches a 5G protocol operating wherein communications are concurrent on separate frequencies).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia by way of Witherell, to include an element that teaches a 5G protocol operating wherein communications are concurrent on separate frequencies.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”) in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), in view of Xu et al. (Pub. No.: US 20170195935 A1, hereafter “Xu”).
Regarding Claim 8
Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia teaches the method as explained above in Claim 1. Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia does not explicitly teach
storing, by the system, the second information indicative of network slicing information as a voice over wireless message; and sending, by the system, the voice over wireless message to a third network equipment.
However, Xu teaches
storing (Xu ¶0049: for handovers), by the system (Xu ¶0049: packet data network), the second information indicative of network slicing information (Xu ¶0049: bearer management functions) as a voice over wireless message (Xu ¶0044: VoIP; Xu teaches a system transferring information in a system for a VoIP setup); and sending (Xu ¶0049: for handovers), by the system, the voice over wireless message to a third network equipment (Xu ¶0044: VoIP; Naseer-Ul-Islam and Xu teach a handover retaining the handover forwarding data as well as VoIP data).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Naseer-Ul-Islam by way of Mondal, further by Murgia, with Xu to have a handover retaining the handover forwarding data as well as VoIP data, as taught by Xu in ¶0044 and ¶0049, to enable inter-MeNB handovers more effectively.
Claim(s) 9, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and as being anticipated by Kim (Pub. No.: US 20190253944 A1, hereafter “Kim”), further in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), and even further in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”).
Regarding Claim 9 and Claim 17
Kim Teaches
First network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 125), comprising: a processor; and a memory (Kim Fig. 9: 910, i.e. a location to store UE context), that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (Kim Fig. 9: 910, i.e. a processor) facilitate performance of first network equipment operations, comprising: receiving, from second network equipment (Kim ¶0069: handover, i.e. from a source network element to a secondary network element), network slice information for a user equipment during a first handover (Kim ¶0104: relocation request message through NGx interface) of the user equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 100) from the second network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 120) to the first network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 125; Kim teaches equipment that network slice information for a handover);
and transmitting (Kim Fig. 1: between 130 and 125), to third network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 130), the network slice information (Kim ¶0069: network slicing) for the user equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 100) during a second handover (Kim ¶0069: handover) of the user equipment (Kim ¶0069: UE handover) from the first network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 125) to the third network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 130; Kim teaches transmitting network slice information during a handover of the UE from the third to first network equipment).
Kim does not explicitly teach
wherein the network slice information includes user equipment context information, service parameters, and dynamic state information associated with one or more network slices assigned to the user equipment, wherein the user equipment context information includes the network slice information retained at the first network equipment,
wherein the network slice information facilitates preservation of the network slice information for the user equipment during and after the first handover such that the user equipment resumes a same application or session by default after return from a fallback or the first handover,
However, Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches
wherein the network slicing information includes user equipment context information (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0208: Specific RAN configuration information), service parameters (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0208: information indicating a delayed UP path switch), and dynamic state information associated with one or more network slices assigned to the user equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0208: DRB profile), wherein the user equipment context information includes the network slicing information retained at the first network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: S520 is sent from the source cell; Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches user equipment information containing configuration information, information about the broader system, and UE-specific profile information being sent from the source cell),
wherein the second transmission (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: S520) is from the first network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: gNB 1) to the second network equipment (Naseer-Ul-Islam Fig. 5: gNB 2; Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches a DAPS handover, wherein there is a configured handover request before there is a handover from the UE from one cell to another), and wherein the network slicing information facilitates preservation (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0127: avoiding the discontinuity of the slice) of the network slicing information for the user equipment during (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0127: during a connection switch, e.g. handover) and after the handover (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0128: handover failure) such that the user equipment resumes a same application (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim) or session (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0128: MNO slice) by default after return from a fallback or the handover (Naseer-Ul-Islam ¶0128: resume service in cell later on; Naseer-Ul-Islam teaches in the case where the handover system fails, to resume using the previously used cell);
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim by way of Naseer-Ul-Islam, to include an element that teaches a DAPS handover, wherein there is a configured handover request before there is a handover from the UE from one cell to another and in the case where the handover system fails, to resume using the previously used cell, as taught by Naseer-Ul-Islam in Fig. 5, ¶0127, ¶0128, and ¶0208, to better improve communication in multiple systems for user equipment in a handover system with a backup system in the event that the handover fails and the user equipment is dropped, and causes a connection issue and reducing reliability.
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam does not explicitly teach
the service parameters comprise fast return priorities and network conditions, and the dynamic state information comprises user priority including latency, jitter, and speed;
However, Murgia teaches
the service parameters comprise fast return priorities (Murgia ¶0030: high priority traffic) and network conditions (Murgia ¶0029: one path may have lower latency), and the dynamic state information comprises user priority including latency (Murgia ¶0030: latency), jitter (Murgia ¶0030: jitter), and speed (Murgia ¶0030: ping test; Murgia teaches defining a high priority traffic relating to the path and including information for latency, jitter, and an associated ping test)
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further by Murgia, to include an element that teaches defining a high priority traffic relating to the path and including information for latency, jitter, and an associated ping test, as taught by Murgia in ¶0029 and ¶0030, to improve virtual private networks by having improve monitoring of additional networks by high priority traffic including redirecting said high priority traffic in the case where the information is not being given the resources that is required of it.
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, and further in view of Mondal does not explicitly teach
retaining, by the system, the second information indicative of network slicing information via a voice over wireless protocol;
wherein the transmitting further comprises forwarding the network slice information to the third network equipment via the voice over wireless protocol.
However, Mondal teaches
retaining (Mondal ¶0076: handover), by the system (Mondal Fig. 5: eNB), the second information indicative of network slicing information (Mondal ¶0076: an identifier that uniquely IDs the wireless device, e.g. Old-eNB-UE-X2AP) via a voice over wireless protocol (Mondal ¶0076: VoLTE session; Mondal teaches a system receiving a handover message to be used in a handover);
wherein the transmitting (Mondal Fig. 6: X2_SN_STATUS_TRANSFER) further comprises forwarding (Mondal Fig. 6: X2_SN_STATUS_TRANSFER) the network slice information (Mondal ¶0076: an identifier that uniquely IDs the wireless device, e.g. Old-eNB-UE-X2AP) to the third network equipment (Mondal Fig. 6: T-eNB) via the voice over wireless protocol(Mondal ¶0076: VoLTE session; Mondal teaches a handover from one eNB to another eNB system for a VoLTE session using a unique ID for a UE).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, and further in view of Murgia by way of Mondal, to include an element that teaches a handover from one eNB to another eNB system for a VoLTE session using a unique ID for a UE, as taught by Mondal in ¶0076, to further improve key performance indicators based on information elements pertaining to those messages and improve automated measurement and analysis of end-to-end performance of VoLTE services.
Claim 17 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art, Kim teaches
retaining (Kim ¶0010: UE context stored) the network slicing information (Kim ¶0069: network slicing); and based on an indication of a second transfer (Kim ¶0069: handover) of the mobile device (Kim ¶0069: UE) to being serviced via third network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 130), transmitting, to the third network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 130), second transfer information applicable to the mobile device (Kim ¶0069: UE) being transferred from being serviced via the first network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 125) to being serviced via the third network equipment and the network slicing information assigned to the mobile device (Kim ¶0069: UE; Kim teaches multiple handovers between multiple pieces of network equipment).
Regarding Claim 13
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 9. Mondal teaches
the transmitting (Mondal ¶0076: handover) further comprises transmitting the network slice information (Mondal ¶0076: UE context) via a voice over wireless message (Mondal ¶0076: VoLTE; Mondal teaches transmitting the UE context in VoLTE for the use of a handover).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim with Mondal to teach transmitting the UE context in VoLTE for the use of a handover, as taught by Mondal in ¶0076, to further improve key performance indicators based on information elements pertaining to those messages and improve automated measurement and analysis of end-to-end performance of VoLTE services.
Regarding Claim 14
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 9. Kim further discloses
the second network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 120) and the third network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 130) are configured to operate according to a new radio network communication protocol (Kim Fig. 1: 115 and Kim ¶0199: 5G and LTE are heterogeneous networks; Kim teaches that both networks are heterogeneous).
Regarding Claim 15
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 9. Kim further discloses
the second network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 120) is configured to operate according to at least a fifth generation network communication protocol, and wherein the third network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 130) is configured to operate according to a long term evolution network protocol (Kim Fig. 1: 115 and Kim ¶0199: 5G and LTE are heterogeneous networks; Kim teaches that both networks are heterogeneous).
Claim(s) 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Pub. No.: US 20190253944 A1, hereafter “Kim”), further in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), and even further in view of Cui (Pub. No.: US 20220159522 A1, hereafter “Cui”).
Regarding Claim 10
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 9. Kim further teaches
wherein the network slice information (Kim ¶0069: network slicing)
assigned to the user equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 100)
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal does not explicitly teach
comprises a voice over new radio configuration and information indicative of new radio services assigned to the user equipment.
However, Cui teaches
comprises a voice over new radio (Cui Abstract: VoNR) configuration and information indicative of new radio services (Cui Abstract: automatic neighbor relationships; Kim teaches the framework for communication and Cui teaches the details of the data).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal with Cui to enable different types of data transferred, as taught by Cui in the Abstract, to enable enhancements for mobility management optimization for VoNR functionality.
Regarding Claim 12
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 9. Kim further teaches
the first network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 125)
Kim does not explicitly teach
comprises a radio access network intelligence controller
However, Cui teaches
comprises a radio access network intelligence controller (Cui Abstract: within an RIC; Kim and Cui teach network equipment that contains an intelligent controller, RIC).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kim in view with Cui to enable network equipment that contains an intelligent controller, RIC to enable enhancements for mobility management optimization for VoNR functionality.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and as being anticipated by Kim (Pub. No.: US 20190253944 A1, hereafter “Kim”), further in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), and even further in view of Dauneria (Pub. No.: US 20230379775 A1, hereafter “Dauneria”).
Regarding Claim 11
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 9. Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal does not explicitly teach
prior to the transmitting, retaining the network slice information as user equipment context information.
However, Dauneria teaches
prior to the transmitting (Dauneria ¶0081: during triggering event for handover), retaining the network slice information as user equipment context information (Dauneria ¶0081: UE SMF context; Dauneria teaches retaining the UE context prior to handover).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal with Dauneria to teach retaining the UE context prior to handover, as taught by Dauneria in ¶0081, to enable inter-MeNB handovers more effectively.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Pub. No.: US 20190253944 A1, hereafter “Kim”), further in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), and even further in view of Khanna (Pub. No.: US 20200323037 A1, hereafter “Khanna”).
Regarding Claim 16
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 9. Kim further teaches
the first network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 125)
wherein the second network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 120) and the third network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 130)
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal does not explicitly teach
the first network equipment is deployed in a non-standalone deployment architecture
wherein the second and third network equipment are deployed in a standalone deployment architecture
However, Khanna teaches
the first network equipment is deployed in a non-standalone deployment architecture (Khanna ¶0051: nonstandalone)
wherein the second and third network equipment are deployed in a standalone deployment architecture (Khanna ¶0051: standalone; Kim and Khanna teach having network elements being nonstandalone or standalone).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal in view Khanna having network elements being nonstandalone or standalone, as taught by Khanna in ¶0051 to enable a bubble network operate independently.
Regarding Claim 19
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 17. Kim further teaches
the second network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 120)
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal does not explicitly teach
is configured to operate in a standalone new radio network deployment architecture.
However, Khanna teaches
is configured to operate in a standalone (Khanna ¶0051: standalone) new radio network deployment architecture (Khanna ¶0051: 5G core networks; Kim and Khanna teach network equipment operating standalone 5G).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kim in view of Xu with Khanna to have network equipment operating standalone 5G, as taught by Khanna in ¶0051, to enable a bubble network operate independently.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Pub. No.: US 20190253944 A1, hereafter “Kim”), further in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), and even further in view of Xu (Pub. No.: US 20170195935 A1, hereafter “Xu”).
Regarding Claim 18
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 17. Kim further discloses
the retaining (Kim ¶0010: UE context stored) comprises storing the network slicing information (Kim ¶0069: network slicing) over wireless message to the third network equipment (Kim Fig. 1: 130).
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal does not teach
as a voice over wireless message, and wherein the transmitting comprises sending the voice
However, Xu teaches
as a voice over wireless message (Xu ¶0044: VoIP), and wherein the transmitting comprises sending the voice (Xu ¶0044: VoIP; Kim and Xu teach a handover retaining data as well as VoIP data)
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal with Xu to have a processor attached to memory, as well as performing steps concurrently, as taught by Xu in ¶0196 and ¶0199, to enable inter-MeNB handovers more effectively.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Pub. No.: US 20190253944 A1, hereafter “Kim”), further in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam (Pub.: No.: US 20230397073 A1, hereafter “Naseer-Ul-Islam”), further in view of Murgia (Pub. No.: US 20190230027 A1, hereafter “Murgia”), in view of Mondal (Pub. No.: US 20160142931 A1, hereafter “Mondal”), and even further in view of Kim, Jong Yeob (Pub. No.: US 20130287002 A1, hereafter “Kim, Jong Yeob”).
Regarding Claim 20
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 17. Kim further discloses
the transmitting (Kim Fig. 1: between 130 and 125)
Kim in view of Naseer-Ul-Islam, further in view of Murgia, and even further in view of Mondal does not explicitly teach
comprises implementing a conditional fast return after voice fall back.
However, Kim Jong Yeob teaches
comprises implementing a conditional fast return (Kim Jong Yeob ¶0112: conditional fast return) after voice fallback (Kim Jong Yeob ¶0043: voice fallback; Kim and Kim Jong Yeob talk about implementing a conditional fast return after fallback).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kim with Kim Jong Yeob to implement a conditional fast return after fallback, to enable a network system to not wait for a normal termination of a packet switches session.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415