Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/909,923

Methods of Facilitating the Handover of a User Equipment, UE, in a Telecommunication Network from a Base Station to a Relay Node, as well as Corresponding Nodes and Modules

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 07, 2022
Examiner
KURIAN, ANDREW SHAJI
Art Unit
2464
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ)
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
7 granted / 9 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-5.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
65
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
69.9%
+29.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 9 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed January 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 18-31 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103. 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 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 18-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh (US 20210227435 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20190239122 A1). Regarding claim 18, Hsieh teaches a method of handing over a User Equipment, UE, in a telecommunication network from an Integrated Access Backhaul, IAB, donor node to an IAB relay node, said IAB relay node configured to relay traffic between said UE and said IAB donor node (Paragraph 25, 39–40, 100, 103, 160, These passages disclose handover of a UE in an IAB architecture from a source IAB-Donor to a target IAB-Donor/IAB-Node that supports wireless access and backhaul of UE traffic), wherein said method comprises receiving, by said IAB relay node, from said IAB donor node a request for handing over said UE connected to said IAB donor node (Paragraph 115, 117, These passages disclose that the target node receives a Handover Request message from the source donor requesting preparation for handover of the IAB-Node and connected UE); and transmitting, by said IAB relay node, to said IAB donor node, based on said QoS query acknowledgement, a handover acknowledgement message thereby acknowledging the handover of said UE from said IAB donor node to said IAB relay node (Paragraph 118, 121, These passages disclose that, after admission control and preparation, the target node transmits a Handover Request Acknowledgement message to the source donor confirming acceptance and preparation for handover of the IAB-Node and connected UE). Hsieh does not explicitly teach transmitting, by said IAB relay node, a QoS query request to a QoS Status module for querying whether a QoS parameter of said UE is below a QoS threshold for said IAB relay node; receiving, by said IAB relay node, from said QoS Status module a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold for said IAB relay node. However, Wang et al. teaches transmitting, by said IAB relay node, a QoS query request to a QoS Status module for querying whether a QoS parameter of said UE is below a QoS threshold for said IAB relay node (Paragraph 66, 73, 74, 88, These passages teach that upon receiving UE context, the target node internally invokes an evaluation/comparison module to determine whether QoS parameters (e.g., MBR) differ from or fall below those supported by the target network, which corresponds to issuing a QoS query to a QoS status module to assess whether a QoS parameter is below a threshold of the target node); receiving, by said AB relay node, from said QoS Status module a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold for said IAB relay node (Paragraph 66, 84, 90, These passages teach that the comparison module determines and indicates when QoS parameters differ from those supported by the target network, thereby providing an internal acknowledgment that the existing QoS parameters are below or mismatched relative to the target network’s supported levels). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide transmitting, by said IAB relay node, a QoS query request to a QoS Status module for querying whether a QoS parameter of said UE is below a QoS threshold for said IAB relay node; receiving, by said IAB relay node, from said QoS Status module a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold for said IAB relay node as taught by Wang et al. in the system of Hsieh, so that it would enable the target IAB relay node to evaluate whether the UE’s QoS requirements can be supported prior to sending the handover acknowledgement, thereby improving admission control decisions and ensuring reliable service continuity during handover. Regarding claim 19, Hsieh teaches receiving, by said IAB relay node, from said UE, a reconfiguration complete message indicating that said UE is handed over from said IAB donor node to said IAB relay node; transmitting, by said IAB relay node, to said QoS Status module a UE status update message indicating that said UE is connected to said IAB relay node (Paragraph 149, 151, 155, 157, These passages teach that the IAB-Node DU (relay) receives from the UE an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message confirming completion of handover from the source donor, and then forwards that message to the Target CU via an uplink RRC transfer to complete the handover procedure, thereby transmitting an updated UE connection status to the central control entity). Regarding claim 20, Hsieh teaches a method of handing over a User Equipment, UE, in a telecommunication network from an Integrated Access Backhaul, IAB, donor node to an IAB relay node, the IAB relay node configured to relay traffic between a UE and said IAB donor node (Paragraph 39, 40, 89, 102, 103, These passages expressly disclose handover of an IAB-Node (relay) and its connected UE from a Source IAB-Donor to a Target IAB-Donor in an architecture where the IAB-Node relays UE access traffic toward the donor over backhaul) Hsieh does not explicitly teach wherein said method comprises receiving, by a Quality-of-Service, QoS, status module, from said IAB relay node, a QoS query request for requesting whether a QoS parameter of said UE served by said IAB donor node, is below a QoS threshold for said IAB relay node; and transmitting, by said QoS status module, to said IAB relay node, a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold when it is determined that the QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold. However, Wang et al. teaches wherein said method comprises receiving, by a Quality-of-Service, QoS, status module, from said IAB relay node, a QoS query request for requesting whether a QoS parameter of said UE served by said IAB donor node, is below a QoS threshold for said IAB relay node (Paragraph 66, 90, 93, These passages teach that upon mobility, QoS parameters received from another network node are evaluated and compared against supported parameters to determine mismatches (e.g., lower MBR), which corresponds to receiving a QoS-related request and determining whether a QoS parameter is below a threshold supported by the receiving node); and transmitting, by said QoS status module, to said IAB relay node, a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold when it is determined that the QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold (Paragraph 67, 68, 97, 100, These passages teach transmission of a QoS-related message followed by receipt/transmission of an acknowledgement confirming QoS modification based on determined parameter differences, corresponding to transmitting a QoS acknowledgement when a QoS parameter condition (e.g., lower than supported level) is determined). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein said method comprises receiving, by a Quality-of-Service, QoS, status module, from said IAB relay node, a QoS query request for requesting whether a QoS parameter of said UE served by said IAB donor node, is below a QoS threshold for said IAB relay node; and transmitting, by said QoS status module, to said IAB relay node, a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold when it is determined that the QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold as taught by Wang et al. in the system of Hsieh, so that it would ensure that during IAB handover the target relay node verifies QoS compatibility and confirms parameter support to maintain service continuity and prevent degradation due to unsupported or mismatched QoS parameters. Regarding claim 21, Hsieh teaches determining, by a Quality-of-Service, QoS, Status module, QoS parameters of UE served by said IAB donor node; retrieving, by said QoS Status module, from a Location Management Function, LMF, locations of said UE served by said IAB donor node; determining, by said QoS status module, a QoS region in which a plurality of UE are located having QoS parameters below a QoS threshold based on said retrieving and determining steps; requesting, by said QoS status module, deployment of the IAB relay node in said QoS region for serving said plurality of UE having QoS parameters below said QoS threshold (Paragraph 165, 167, 201, 202, 289, These passages disclose obtaining radio quality and location measurements associated with an IAB-node and its connected UE, analyzing those parameters against triggering thresholds to determine when multiple connected UE experience degraded service conditions in a geographic context, and sending a handover request to prepare resources at another IAB-donor to serve those UE, corresponding to determining QoS parameters and location, identifying a low-QoS region, and requesting relay deployment to serve affected UE). Regarding claim 22, Hsieh teaches determining a centroid of said QoS region, and wherein said step of requesting comprises requesting deployment of said IAB relay node at said determined centroid (Paragraph 165, 222, 247, The passage teaches using location and signal-quality measurements to analyze and select a target deployment location for improved service and sending a handover request to deploy the IAB-node resources at that selected location, corresponding to determining a central QoS-based point and requesting deployment there). Regarding claim 23, Hsieh teaches forecasting future QoS parameters and locations of said UE served by said IAB donor node based on previous QoS parameters and previous locations of said UE served by said IAB donor node (Paragraph 107, 108, 114, 115, These passages disclose collecting prior QoS-related metrics (e.g., RSRP/RSRQ) and location/movement data and using that historical measurement information to decide and prepare future handover actions affecting the UE’s subsequent service location and quality). Regarding claim 24, Hsieh teaches an Integrated Access Backhaul, IAB, relay node for facilitating the handover of a User Equipment, UE, in a telecommunication network from an IAB donor node to the IAB relay node, the IAB relay node configured to relay traffic between said UE and said IAB donor node, wherein said IB relay node comprises: memory storing instructions (Paragraph 199, 271, 291, These passages disclose a node/base station (including an IAB-Node) connected to UEs and implemented with memory storing executable instructions and a processor executing those instructions to perform handover-related functions); and processing circuitry configured to execute the instructions to cause the IAB relay node to: receive, from said IAB donor node a request for handing over said UE connected to said IAB donor node (Paragraph 202, 247, These passages teach that a donor (source) sends a Handover Request concerning connected UE to another node, which receives the request to prepare for UE handover); and transmit, to said IAB donor node, based on said QoS query acknowledgement, a handover acknowledgement message acknowledging the handover of said UE from said IAB donor node to said IAB relay node (Paragraph 175–176, 247, These passages disclose that upon determining to accept the handover (after internal evaluation), the target node transmits a handover acknowledgment message to the source donor acknowledging preparation and acceptance of handover of the connected UE). Hsieh does not explicitly teach transmit, to a QoS status module, a Quality of Service, QoS, query request for querying whether a QoS parameter of said UE is below a QoS threshold; receive, from said QoS status module, a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold. However, Wang et al. teaches transmit, to a QoS status module, a Quality of Service, QoS, query request for querying whether a QoS parameter of said UE is below a QoS threshold (Paragraph 66, 74, 95, These passages teach internal evaluation and comparison of UE QoS parameters against supported values to determine discrepancies, which corresponds to querying a QoS-related module to determine whether a QoS parameter falls below a required or supported level); receive, from said QoS status module, a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold (Paragraph 66, 85, 90, These passages teach that after evaluation of QoS parameters, a determination is made that differences exist and a modification procedure is triggered, corresponding to receipt of an internal indication that QoS parameters do not meet supported levels). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide transmit, to a QoS status module, a Quality of Service, QoS, query request for querying whether a QoS parameter of said UE is below a QoS threshold; receive, from said QoS status module, a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold as taught by Wang et al. in the system of Hsieh, so that it would enable the IAB relay node to evaluate whether the UE’s QoS parameters satisfy required thresholds prior to acknowledging handover and thereby ensure that handover decisions maintain acceptable service quality and prevent degradation of ongoing communications. Regarding claim 25, Hsieh teaches receive, from said UE, a reconfiguration complete message indicating that said UE is handed over from said IAB donor node to said IAB relay node, and transmit to the QoS Status Module a UE status update message indicating that said UE is connected to said IAB relay node (Paragraph 151, 153, 155, 157, These passages disclose that the IAB-Node DU (relay) receives an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message from the UE confirming completion of handover and, in response, transmits signaling to control entities (Source CU/Target CU) conveying that the UE has completed handover and is now connected via the relay). Regarding claim 26, Hsieh teaches a Quality-of-Service, QoS, status module for handing over a User Equipment, UE, in a telecommunication network from an Integrated Access Backhaul, IAB, donor node to an IAB relay node, the IAB relay node configured to relay traffic between said UE and IAB donor node (Paragraph 25, 39–40, 160–161, These passages disclose an IAB architecture in which an IAB-Node (relay) supports UE access and backhauls traffic to an IAB-Donor and where the UE and node are handed over between donor nodes, corresponding to a QoS-related module operating in that handover context), said QoS status module comprising: memory storing instructions; and processing circuitry configured to execute the instructions (Paragraph 58, 61–62, These passages disclose memory storing executable instructions and processors configured to execute those instructions in network nodes) to cause the QoS status module to: transmit, to said IAB relay node, a QoS query acknowledgement acknowledging that said QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold when it is determined that the QoS parameter of said UE is below said QoS threshold (Paragraph 115, 118, 123, 141, These passages disclose that, upon determining based on reported parameters to proceed with handover, the donor CU transmits acknowledgement/decision messages and interface messages notifying the IAB-Node of the handover decision). Hsieh does not explicitly teach receive, from said relay node, a QoS query request for requesting whether a QoS parameter of said UE served by said IAB donor node, is below a QoS threshold for said IAB relay node. However, Wang et al. teaches receive, from said relay node, a QoS query request for requesting whether a QoS parameter of said UE served by said IAB donor node, is below a QoS threshold for said IAB relay node (Paragraph 66, 88, 90, 95–96, These passages disclose receiving QoS-related information during handover, performing comparison/evaluation of QoS parameters against supported values, and determining whether discrepancies (i.e., parameters not meeting supported levels) exist). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide receive, from said relay node, a QoS query request for requesting whether a QoS parameter of said UE served by said IAB donor node, is below a QoS threshold for said IAB relay node as taught by Wang et al. in the system of Hsieh, so that it would enable the donor node to evaluate and confirm QoS compliance prior to handover and thereby improve handover reliability and ensure that the relay node can adequately support the UE’s QoS requirements. Regarding claim 27, Hsieh teaches determine QoS parameters of said UE served by said IAB donor node; retrieve, from a Location Management Function, LMF, locations of said UE served by said IAB donor node; determine a QoS region in which a plurality of UE are located having QoS parameters below a QoS threshold based on said retrieving and determining steps; request deployment of said IAB relay node in said QoS region for serving said plurality of UE having QoS parameters below said QoS threshold (Paragraph 59, 70, 103, 108, 112, 115, These passages collectively disclose determining QoS-related parameters (QoS flows, signal quality metrics) and location information for multiple UEs served by an IAB-Donor, using that information to decide that multiple UEs in a served area experience degraded quality, and sending a handover request to prepare resources at another IAB node). Regarding claim 28, Hsieh teaches determine a centroid of said QoS region, and request deployment of said IAB relay node at said determined centroid (Paragraph 165, 222, 247, The passage teaches using location and signal-quality measurements to analyze and select a target deployment location for improved service and sending a handover request to deploy the IAB-node resources at that selected location, corresponding to determining a central QoS-based point and requesting deployment there). Regarding claim 29, Hsieh teaches forecast future QoS parameters and locations of said UE served by said IAB donor node based on previous QoS parameters and previous locations of said UE served by said IAB donor node (Paragraph 107, 108, 114, 115, These passages disclose collecting prior QoS-related metrics (e.g., RSRP/RSRQ) and location/movement data and using that historical measurement information to decide and prepare future handover actions affecting the UE’s subsequent service location and quality). Regarding claim 30, Hsieh teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by an Integrated Access Backhaul, IAB, relay node, cause said IAB relay node to implement a method in accordance with claim 18 (Paragraph 40, 61, 104, 133, These passages disclose a storage medium in an IAB-Node (relay) storing executable instructions that, when executed by processors of the IAB-Node, cause the IAB-Node to perform handover and interface setup procedures). Regarding claim 31, Hsieh teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a Quality of Status, QoS, status module, cause said QoS status module to implement a method in accordance with claim 20 (Paragraph 58, 59, 61, 100, 160, These passages disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions (e.g., handover manager and protocol procedures) that, when executed by processing circuitry of a module responsible for QoS-related handover decisions, cause implementation of the described handover method). Allowable Subject Matter To more fully reflect the novel improvements described in the specification, the applicant could consider adding concepts clarifying that the QoS parameter is actively retrieved and/or periodically monitored by a centralized QoS Status Module that maintains QoS information for multiple UEs served by the base station, rather than merely responding to an isolated query. The claim could further emphasize that only UEs having QoS parameters below the threshold are selectively handed over, while UEs with acceptable QoS remain served by the base station to avoid unnecessary degradation, thereby highlighting the selective and efficiency-preserving nature of the handover decision. Additional concepts could include receiving, at the relay node, a reconfiguration complete message from the UE after handover and transmitting a UE status update message to the QoS Status Module indicating the UE’s new association. The applicant could also incorporate concepts directed to the QoS Status Module retrieving UE location information from a Location Management Function (LMF), determining a QoS region in which multiple UEs have QoS below the threshold, and optionally determining a centroid of that region for optimized relay deployment. Further distinguishing concepts may include forecasting future QoS parameters and UE locations based on historical data to proactively determine relay placement, triggering relay deployment based on a likelihood condition, and involving a relay manager module that receives a deployment request from the QoS Status Module and coordinates physical or logical deployment of a relay node in the identified QoS region. Including one or more of these system-level coordination, region-based analysis, predictive, and deployment-oriented features would better capture the broader architectural and optimization aspects disclosed in the specification beyond the basic per-UE handover acknowledgment flow currently recited. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (US 20220174622 A1) Ishii (US 20230139323 A1) Fujishiro (US 20220264665 A1) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm. 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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. /ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2464 /IQBAL ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 07, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 12, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 16, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 22, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588094
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING SMALL DATA TRANSMISSION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574960
MAINTAINING CHANNEL OCCUPANCY TIME IN SIDELINK COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563461
DISTRIBUTED MACHINE LEARNING SOLUTION FOR ROGUE BASE STATION DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12550012
NON TERRESTRIAL NETWORK NTN HANDOVER METHOD, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12489577
METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING DATA IN SHORT-RANGE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, AND APPARATUS THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (-5.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 9 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month