Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on December 16, 2025. Claims 62-65 have been newly added, therefore, claim s 42-65 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
America Invents Act (AIA ) Information
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 10/22/2025 (has/have) been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim42, 50, 55 and 61have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claim(s) 42-44 and 46-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSIEH CHING-JUNG (WO 2019246446 A1), hereafter “Hsieh.” in view of Kadiri; Prasad Reddy et al. (US 20210092654 A1), hereafter “Kadiri.”
Consider claim 42. Hsieh discloses a method performed by an integrated access backhaul (IAB) node, the method comprising (see fig. 10, par. 0115: “an example of data and control transmissions for an IAB-Node (node base station) and connected User Equipment (UE) to handover from a Source IAB-Donor (source donor base station) to a Target IAB-Donor (target donor base station)” ): migrating a control plane connection of the IAB node from first radio network equipment to second radio network equipment (see fig. 10, pars. 0132 – 0134; par. 0134: “The RRC Reconfiguration message 1008 carries configuration information and includes the RRC configuration of the IAB-Node 830. In aspects, a Node RRC Reconfiguration message contains the configuration required by the Mobile- Termination function of the IAB-Node 830 to communicate with the next hop IAB- Node ( e.g ., IAB-Node 832) towards the Target IAB-Donor 125 or directly with the Target IAB-Donor 125. After an IAB-Node 830 receives a Node RRC Reconfiguration message, there may be random access procedure for the IAB-Node 830 to connect to the Target IAB-Donor 125 or the next hop IAB-Node in the case of a subtending node. Responsive to receiving the Node RRC Configuration in the RRC Reconfiguration message 1008, the IAB-Node 830 performs the required RRC reconfiguration” ); maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection between the IAB node and the first radio network equipment (see pars. 0140-0141; par. 0141: “Responsive to determining that the IAB-Node 830 has received an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message from all UE 110 connected to the IAB-Node 830 and that the IAB-Node 830 has successfully handover to the Target IAB-Donor 125, the IAB-Node 830 can regard itself (and all UE 110 connected to it) as successfully handover to the Target IAB-Donor 125. Responsive to the completion of handover, the IAB-Node 830 can release the related connection and interface with the Source IAB- Donor 823. Responsive to completion of handover of the IAB-Node 830, the IAB- Node 830 generates and sends an IAB-Node RRC Reconfiguration Complete message 1016 to the Target IAB-Donor 125 indicating the completion of handover of the IAB- Node 830 and connected UE 110 to the Target IAB-Donor 125. ”. Examiner’s analysis: all connections established with the source IAB are keep up until a successful handover to the target IAB (e.g., temporarily maintaining a radio
network layer application protocol connection)).
Hsieh, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Kadiri, in analogous art; after migrating the control plane connection, maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201: “the UE 115-c may communicate with the source base station 105-e during and/or after handover execution period 440 using a first band of the at least one band combination indicated in the source base station configuration…” Examiner’s Analysis: the connection between the UE and the source base station is maintain after the execution of the hand over using a different band frequency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh and have it include the teachings of Kadiri. The motivation would have been in order to provide an alternative communication path in case the something goes wrong with the new connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201).
Consider claim 43 in view of claim 42 above. Hsieh further discloses transmitting and/or receiving one or more control plane messages over the migrated control plane connection between the IAB node and the second radio network equipment (see par. 0135: “Responsive to receiving the RRC Configuration (UE RRC Reconfiguration) of UE 110 connected to the IAB-Node 830 (e.g., in an RRC Reconfiguration message carried in a Handover Request Acknowledgement message 1006), the Source IAB-Donor 123 may forward the UE RRC Configuration to the IAB- Node 830. In aspects, the UE RRC Configuration may be encapsulated in an RRC Reconfiguration message 1008 sent to the IAB-Node 830 by the Source IAB-Donor 123”, Examiner’s Analysis: control plane messages (e. g,. RRC Configuration)).
Consider claim 44 in view of claim 42 above. Hsieh further discloses before said migrating, serving a cell using certain values for cell-specific parameters; and after said migrating serving the cell using the same certain values for the cell-specific parameters (see par. 0081: “the measurement result information may include location information (e.g., the current location (relative or absolute) of the IAB-Node). In aspects, the measurement result information may include movement information (e.g., the moving speed of the IAB-Node, the moving direction of the IAB-Node). In aspects, the measurement result information may include the measurement results of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) and/or the measurement results of Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) of the serving cell and/or neighbor cell perceived by the IAB- Node when the event-based measurement is triggered such as that the neighbor cell signal becomes better or improves.”
Consider claim 46 in view of claim 42 above. Hsieh further discloses deciding whether and/or when to migrate the radio network layer application protocol connection from the first radio network equipment to the second radio network equipment based on at least one of any one or more of: an amount of and/or type of traffic communicated on the radio network layer application protocol connection; an amount of and/or type of wireless devices supported by the radio network layer application protocol connection; and an amount of and/or type of bearers of a certain quality of service profile supported by the radio network layer application protocol connection (see par. 0080: “the IAB-Node 830 (e.g., Mobile-Termination (MT) 834 of IAB-Node 832) may make measurements of reference signals and other parameters related to the IAB-Node 830. Based on one or more measured parameters related to the IAB-Node 830 and/or other information useful to the Source CU 810 in deciding whether to handover the IAB-Node 830 to another IAB-Donor (collectively “measurement result information”), the IAB-Node 830 decides to trigger the handover of the IAB-Node 830 and User Equipment (UE) connected to the IAB-Node 830 from the Source IAB-Donor 123 ( e.g ., Source CU 810) to the Target IAB-Donor 125 (e.g., Target CU 860). ” Examiner’s note: Claim is written in alternative format.).
Hsieh, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Kadiri, in analogous art; after migrating the control plane connection, while maintaining the radio network layer application protocol connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201: “the UE 115-c may communicate with the source base station 105-e during and/or after handover execution period 440 using a first band of the at least one band combination indicated in the source base station configuration…” Examiner’s Analysis: the connection between the UE and the source base station is maintain after the execution of the hand over using a different band frequency). The motivation would have been in order to provide an alternative communication path in case the something goes wrong with the new connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201).
Consider claim 47 in view of claim 42 above. Hsieh further discloses wherein the first radio network equipment comprises a first IAB donor, and wherein the second radio network equipment comprises a second IAB donor (see fig. 10, par. 0084: “the IAB-Node 830 decides to trigger the handover of the IAB-Node 830 and User Equipment (UE) connected to the IAB-Node 830 from the Source IAB-Donor 123 to the Target IAB- Donor 125.”).
Consider claim 48 in view of claim 42 above. Hsieh further discloses wherein the first radio network equipment comprises a first distributed unit and a first central unit that controls the first distributed unit, wherein the second radio network equipment comprises a second distributed unit and a second central unit that controls the second distributed unit (see fig. 6, par. 54: “In the system 600, the base station 121 is illustrated as a non-distributed base station and the base station 123 is illustrated as a distributed base station. The base station 123 (an IAB-Donor) includes a gNB-Central Unit 610 (gNB-CU 610) and one or more gNB Distributed-Units 620 (gNB-DU 620) (e.g., IAB-Nodes), illustrated as gNB-DU 621 and 622. Although two gNB-DU 620 are illustrated for the sake of clarity in FIG. 6, any suitable number of gNB-DUs can be interfaces to the gNB-CU 610”), wherein the IAB node comprises a migrating distributed unit and a migrating mobile termination, wherein said migrating comprises migrating a control plane connection of the migrating mobile termination from the first central unit of the first radio network equipment to the second central unit of the second radio network equipment (see par. 0070: “an IAB-Donor holds at least one donor Distributed Unit ( e.g ., gNB-DU) to support the served UEs of the IAB- Donor and to support the Mobile-Termination (MT) function of subtending (downstream) IAB-Nodes. Via the MT function, an IAB-Node connects to an intermediate (upstream) IAB-Node or the IAB-Donor.”; and par. 0075: “the Source IAB-Donor 123 is served by a Source Distributed Unit 822 (Source DU 822) connected to a Source IAB-Donor Central Unit 810 (Source CU 810) and the Target IAB-Donor 125 is served by a Target IAB-Donor Distributed Unit 872 (Target DU 872) connected to a Target Central Unit 860 (Target CU 860). Through a handover procedure, the IAB-Node 832 migrates from the source IAB-Donor 123 to the Target IAB-Donor 125. FIG. 8 illustrates the topology before the migration as well as the topology after the migration”).
Hsieh, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Kadiri, in analogous art; wherein said maintaining comprises maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection between the migrating distributed unit and the first central unit of the first radio network equipment (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201: “the UE 115-c may communicate with the source base station 105-e during and/or after handover execution period 440 using a first band of the at least one band combination indicated in the source base station configuration…” Examiner’s Analysis: the connection between the UE and the source base station is maintain after the execution of the hand over using a different band frequency). The motivation would have been in order to provide an alternative communication path in case the something goes wrong with the new connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201).
Consider claim 49 in view of claim 42 above. Hsieh further discloses wherein the control plane connection is a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection and wherein the radio network layer application protocol connection is an F1 connection (see par. 0012: “Disclosed herein are also Fl Application Protocol (F1AP) procedures for maintaining communication interfaces through a network role transition. For example, F 1 AP procedures for the Distributed Unit (DU) of an IAB-Node held by a Source Target IAB-Donor CU to establish an Fl interface with the Target IAB-Donor CU to achieve handover of the IAB-Node and connected UE in a central unit-distributed unit architecture. Disclosed herein are also radio resource control (RRC) signaling procedures for maintaining signaling interfaces through a network role transition”).
Consider claim 50. Hsieh discloses a method performed by first radio network equipment, the method comprising (see fig. 10, par. 0115: “an example of data and control transmissions for an IAB-Node (node base station) and connected User Equipment (UE) to handover from a Source IAB-Donor (source donor base station) to a Target IAB-Donor (target donor base station)” ): migrating a control plane connection of an IAB node from the first radio network equipment to second radio network equipment (see fig. 10, pars. 0132 – 0134; par. 0134: “The RRC Reconfiguration message 1008 carries configuration information and includes the RRC configuration of the IAB-Node 830. In aspects, a Node RRC Reconfiguration message contains the configuration required by the Mobile- Termination function of the IAB-Node 830 to communicate with the next hop IAB- Node ( e. g., IAB-Node 832) towards the Target IAB-Donor 125 or directly with the Target IAB-Donor 125. After an IAB-Node 830 receives a Node RRC Reconfiguration message, there may be random access procedure for the IAB-Node 830 to connect to the Target IAB-Donor 125 or the next hop IAB-Node in the case of a subtending node. Responsive to receiving the Node RRC Configuration in the RRC Reconfiguration message 1008, the IAB-Node 830 performs the required RRC reconfiguration” ); and maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection between the IAB node and the first radio network equipment (see pars. 0140-0141; par. 0141: “Responsive to determining that the IAB-Node 830 has received an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message from all UE 110 connected to the IAB-Node 830 and that the IAB-Node 830 has successfully handover to the Target IAB-Donor 125, the IAB-Node 830 can regard itself (and all UE 110 connected to it) as successfully handover to the Target IAB-Donor 125. Responsive to the completion of handover, the IAB-Node 830 can release the related connection and interface with the Source IAB- Donor 823. Responsive to completion of handover of the IAB-Node 830, the IAB- Node 830 generates and sends an IAB-Node RRC Reconfiguration Complete message 1016 to the Target IAB-Donor 125 indicating the completion of handover of the IAB- Node 830 and connected UE 110 to the Target IAB-Donor 125. ”. Examiner’s analysis: all connections established with the source IAB are keep up until a successful handover to the target IAB (e.g., temporarily maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection)).
Hsieh, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Kadiri, in analogous art; after migrating the control plane connection, maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201: “the UE 115-c may communicate with the source base station 105-e during and/or after handover execution period 440 using a first band of the at least one band combination indicated in the source base station configuration…” Examiner’s Analysis: the connection between the UE and the source base station is maintain after the execution of the hand over using a different band frequency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh and have it include the teachings of Kadiri. The motivation would have been in order to provide an alternative communication path in case the something goes wrong with the new connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201).
Consider claim 51, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 46. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 46.
Consider claim 52, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 48. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 48.
Consider claim 53 in view of claim 50 above. Kadiri further discloses after said migrating, for at least one of one or more child nodes of the IAB node, maintaining a control plane connection between the child node and the first radio network equipment (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201: “the UE 115-c may communicate with the source base station 105-e during and/or after handover execution period 440 using a first band of the at least one band combination indicated in the source base station configuration…” Examiner’s Analysis: the connection between the UE and the source base station is maintain after the execution of the hand over using a different band frequency). The motivation would have been in order to provide an alternative communication path in case the something goes wrong with the new connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201).
Consider claim 54 in view of claim 50 above. Hsieh further discloses transmitting and/or receiving a proxied connection migration message, wherein the proxied connection migration message: indicates the IAB node is to migrate the control plane connection to the second radio network equipment; and/or includes configuration information for configuring migration of the control plane connection to the second radio network equipment (see pars. 0075 and 0140 - 0142).
Hsieh, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Kadiri, in analogous art; maintain the radio network layer application protocol connection between the IAB node and the first radio network equipment (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201: “the UE 115-c may communicate with the source base station 105-e during and/or after handover execution period 440 using a first band of the at least one band combination indicated in the source base station configuration…” Examiner’s Analysis: the connection between the UE and the source base station is maintain after the execution of the hand over using a different band frequency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh and have it include the teachings of Kadiri. The motivation would have been in order to provide an alternative communication path in case the something goes wrong with the new connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201).
Consider claim 55. Hsieh discloses an integrated access backhaul (IAB) node comprising: communication circuitry; and processing circuitry configured to (see fig. 10, par. 0115: “an example of data and control transmissions for an IAB-Node (node base station) and connected User Equipment (UE) to handover from a Source IAB-Donor (source donor base station) to a Target IAB-Donor (target donor base station)” ): migrate a control plane connection of the IAB node from first radio network equipment to second radio network equipment (see fig. 10, pars. 0132 – 0134; par. 0134: “The RRC Reconfiguration message 1008 carries configuration information and includes the RRC configuration of the IAB-Node 830. In aspects, a Node RRC Reconfiguration message contains the configuration required by the Mobile- Termination function of the IAB-Node 830 to communicate with the next hop IAB- Node ( e. g., IAB-Node 832) towards the Target IAB-Donor 125 or directly with the Target IAB-Donor 125. After an IAB-Node 830 receives a Node RRC Reconfiguration message, there may be random access procedure for the IAB-Node 830 to connect to the Target IAB-Donor 125 or the next hop IAB-Node in the case of a subtending node. Responsive to receiving the Node RRC Configuration in the RRC Reconfiguration message 1008, the IAB-Node 830 performs the required RRC reconfiguration” ); maintain a radio network layer application protocol connection between the IAB node and the first radio network equipment (see par. 0140 and par. 0141: “Responsive to determining that the IAB-Node 830 has received an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message from all UE 110 connected to the IAB-Node 830 and that the IAB-Node 830 has successfully handover to the Target IAB-Donor 125, the IAB-Node 830 can regard itself (and all UE 110 connected to it) as successfully handover to the Target IAB-Donor 125. Responsive to the completion of handover, the IAB-Node 830 can release the related connection and interface with the Source IAB- Donor 823. Responsive to completion of handover of the IAB-Node 830, the IAB- Node 830 generates and sends an IAB-Node RRC Reconfiguration Complete message 1016 to the Target IAB-Donor 125 indicating the completion of handover of the IAB- Node 830 and connected UE 110 to the Target IAB-Donor 125. ”. Examiner’s analysis: all connections established with the source IAB are keep up until a successful handover to the target IAB (e.g., temporarily maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection)).
Hsieh, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Kadiri, in analogous art; after migrating the control plane connection, maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201: “the UE 115-c may communicate with the source base station 105-e during and/or after handover execution period 440 using a first band of the at least one band combination indicated in the source base station configuration…” Examiner’s Analysis: the connection between the UE and the source base station is maintain after the execution of the hand over using a different band frequency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh and have it include the teachings of Kadiri. The motivation would have been in order to provide an alternative communication path in case the something goes wrong with the new connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201).
Consider claim 56, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 43. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 43.
Consider claim 57, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 44. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 44.
Consider claim 58, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 45. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 45.
Consider claim 59, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 46. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 46.
Consider claim 60, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 49. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 49.
Consider claim 61. Hsieh discloses first radio network equipment comprising: communication circuitry; and processing circuitry configured to: (see fig. 10, par. 0115: “an example of data and control transmissions for an IAB-Node (node base station) and connected User Equipment (UE) to handover from a Source IAB-Donor (source donor base station) to a Target IAB-Donor (target donor base station)” ): migrate a control plane connection of an IAB node from the first radio network equipment to second radio network equipment (see fig. 10, pars. 0132 – 0134; par. 0134: “The RRC Reconfiguration message 1008 carries configuration information and includes the RRC configuration of the IAB-Node 830. In aspects, a Node RRC Reconfiguration message contains the configuration required by the Mobile- Termination function of the IAB-Node 830 to communicate with the next hop IAB- Node ( e. g., IAB-Node 832) towards the Target IAB-Donor 125 or directly with the Target IAB-Donor 125. After an IAB-Node 830 receives a Node RRC Reconfiguration message, there may be random access procedure for the IAB-Node 830 to connect to the Target IAB-Donor 125 or the next hop IAB-Node in the case of a subtending node. Responsive to receiving the Node RRC Configuration in the RRC Reconfiguration message 1008, the IAB-Node 830 performs the required RRC reconfiguration” ); and maintain a radio network layer application protocol connection between the IAB node and the first radio network equipment (see par. 0140 and par. 0141: “Responsive to determining that the IAB-Node 830 has received an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message from all UE 110 connected to the IAB-Node 830 and that the IAB-Node 830 has successfully handover to the Target IAB-Donor 125, the IAB-Node 830 can regard itself (and all UE 110 connected to it) as successfully handover to the Target IAB-Donor 125. Responsive to the completion of handover, the IAB-Node 830 can release the related connection and interface with the Source IAB- Donor 823. Responsive to completion of handover of the IAB-Node 830, the IAB- Node 830 generates and sends an IAB-Node RRC Reconfiguration Complete message 1016 to the Target IAB-Donor 125 indicating the completion of handover of the IAB- Node 830 and connected UE 110 to the Target IAB-Donor 125. ”. Examiner’s analysis: all connections established with the source IAB are keep up until a successful handover to the target IAB (e.g., temporarily maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection)).
Hsieh, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Kadiri, in analogous art; after migrating the control plane connection, maintaining a radio network layer application protocol connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201: “the UE 115-c may communicate with the source base station 105-e during and/or after handover execution period 440 using a first band of the at least one band combination indicated in the source base station configuration…” Examiner’s Analysis: the connection between the UE and the source base station is maintain after the execution of the hand over using a different band frequency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh and have it include the teachings of Kadiri. The motivation would have been in order to provide an alternative communication path in case the something goes wrong with the new connection (see fig. 4, pars. 0196-0201).
10. Claims 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh, in view of by Kadiri as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of LEE; Jaewook et al. (US 20210297909 A1), hereafter “Lee.”
Consider claim 45 in view of claim 42 above. Hsieh further discloses maintaining the radio network layer application protocol connection between the IAB node and the first radio network equipment while the timer is running; migrating the radio network layer application protocol connection from the first radio network equipment to the second radio network equipment (see pars. 0140 - 0141).
Hsieh, as modified by Kadiri, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Lee, in analogous art; starting a timer upon migrating the control plane connection and responsive to expiration of the timer, migrating the radio network layer application protocol connection (see par. 0029: “initiate a third timer when the handover assistance information is received, and perform a radio resource control (RRC) connection re-establishment procedure when the third timer expires”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh, as modified by Kadiri and have it include the teachings of Lee. The motivation would have been in order to keep an active connection when setting new connections (see par. 0019).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim(s) 62-65 (is/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
12. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170006499 A1: discloses traffic flow within tunnel between the local anchor (IAB node) and the global anchor (control plane node) may be migrated from network routing domain to network routing domain.
US 20220361072 A1: discloses handover request message includes a user plane context and a control plane connection context that are maintained by the CU of the IAB donor and that are of an F1 interface between the CU of the IAB donor and the IAB node.
13. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCOS BATISTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
April 13, 2026