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
Rejections under 35 USC 102/103
Applicant’s Argument: Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues in the remarks filed 02/25/2026 Liu does not disclose two security configurations as in claim 1 within the first configuration information. Blankenship discloses UEs handed over from small cell to another small cell in the cluster which is a different handover scenario than Liu.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner has considered Applicant's argument but they are not persuasive. Liu shows a handover configuration with security configuration for a target donor cell. The claim recites that the first configuration information comprises security configuration configured by a target IAB node. Thus, Liu teaches first configuration information with security configuration configured by the target IAB donor, see the rejection below. The claim further recites the first configuration information includes two security configurations. It is not clearly recited that the second security configuration is configured by the target IAB donor or another target IAB donor node. The second security configuration may be any security information stored at the terminal as this second security configuration is never expressly used in a later step. Thus, it would be obvious to combine with Blankenship who teaches other types of security configuration that may be stored at the terminal, which does not necessarily have to do with the target IAB donor and thus may pertain to any cell. Thus whether Blankenship discloses handover in the same way is irrelevant as the concept of multiple security configurations with cell IDs can be incorporated in the invention of Liu which teaches applying the security configurations and the actual usage of the cell ID is not claimed.
Applicant’s Argument: Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues in the remarks filed 02/25/2026 on page 10 that Liu fails to teach applying “apply the security configuration determined from the at least two security configurations in the stored first configuration information according to a selected or reselected cell identifier or index.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the claim, and Examiner notes that the amended portion is presented as an option, with the other option being the “first indication information is obtained.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Liu”) (WO 2021051313 A1) in view of Blankenship et al. (“Blankenship”) (WO 2015066406 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches:
A migration apparatus for an (integrated access and backhaul) IAB-node, applicable to a first terminal equipment [Figure 8, UE], the first terminal equipment comprising a terminal equipment served by a first IAB-node and/or a terminal equipment served by a descendant IAB-node of the first IAB- node [Figure 8, UE served by IAB Node DU step 303], the apparatus comprising: a first memory configured to store first configuration information, the first configuration information comprising security configuration configured by a target IAB donor node [¶0034-35, “sending the second configuration information to at least one child node of the IAB node, and sending the first configuration information to the IAB node. [0035] In a possible implementation, if at least one child node of the IAB node includes a UE, the second configuration information includes at least one of the following: configuration information of the PDCP layer of the UE peering with the target IAB donor, a security algorithm used between the UE and the target IAB donor” see also ¶0338 where this is expressly sent in second configuration, wherein ¶0149 UE updates local configuration corresponding to store as UE are known to have storage];
and first applying processor circuitry configured to:
apply the security configuration in a stored first configuration information when first indication information is obtained [¶0247 send RRCReconfiguration to UE with information to trigger update of configuration to target donor, considered first indication information],
or apply the security configuration determined from the at least two security configurations in the stored first configuration information according to a selected or reselected cell identifier or index when the security configuration in the stored first configuration information comprises security configuration corresponding to the selected or reselected cell.
Liu teaches a security configuration in IAB nodes but does not teach multiple security configurations corresponding to cell IDs. Examiner notes that the claim recites that the UE stores first configuration, which may contain some security configuration configured by the target IAB donor node, as in Liu. But the claim is drafted such that the first configuration information may contain other, second security configuration, not necessarily configured by a target IAB donor node, and thus may pertain to any other cell corresponding to a cell ID.
Blankenship teaches and when the first configuration information includes at least two security configurations, each security configuration corresponds to a cell identifier (cell ID) or index [ ¶0141, “ multiple security configurations can be prepared, one for each candidate target small cell that the UE 1 10 may potentially move to” and ¶0144 “The security configurations […] can be sent to respective target small cell eNBs. Also, the security configurations can be sent by the source small cell eNB to the UE 110” and see ¶0145, each small cell has a PCI, thus each security configuration for each small cell thus corresponds to a cell identifier PCI key includes PCI for small cell, see also ¶0125], and first applying processor circuitry configured to apply the security configuration in a stored first configuration information when first indication information is obtained or the security configuration in the stored first configuration information comprises security configuration corresponding to a selected or reselected cell [¶0153-154 teaches applying the security key].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify multiple security configurations per target cell as in Blankenship. Liu teaches applying security configurations for target cell, and it would have been obvious to indicate multiple cells each with security configurations as in Blankenship who teaches this allows for communicating keys to provide secure communications over the air ¶0021 and provide information integrity for UEs in handoff between small cells to boost data communication capacity ¶0002.
Regarding claim 8, Liu-Blankenship teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, the first indication information is provided explicitly by a source IAB donor node of the first IAB-node [Figure 11, step 405-46, source donor IAB node sends UE context modification with “includes at least one of the following information: UE configuration information […] Step 406: The handover IAB node DU sends an RRCReconfiguration message to the UE, which carries the configuration information” thus the configuration information being first indication information is sent through the DU to the UE from the source donor].
Regarding claim 12, Liu-Blankenship teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, the first configuration information is comprised in a first RRC (radio resource control) message [Liu ¶0034-35, second configuration with security information sent to UE in configuration, ¶0149 sent in RRCReconfiguration message].
Regarding claim 13, Liu-Blankenship teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, the first RRC message comprises second indication information, the second indication information being used for indicating that the first terminal equipment stores the first RRC message or a part of configurations in the first RRC message or the first configuration information including the security configuration [Liu ¶0149 “RRCReconfiguration message to the UE, which carries the configuration information of the UE so that the UE can be updated according to the configuration of the target IABdonor CU-CP. That is, after receiving the RRCReconfiguration message, the UE can update the local configuration based on the new configuration included therein” corresponding to second indication information].
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Liu”) (WO 2021051313 A1) in view of Blankenship et al. (“Blankenship”) (WO 2015066406 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Liu-Blankenship teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Liu teaches first indication but not MAC indication.
Shrestha teaches wherein the first indication information is comprised in an L1 indication message or an (medium access control) MAC indication message [¶0151 message to activate handover MAC-CE, ¶0153].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify a MAC-CE with the indication information as in Shrestha. Liu teaches RRC and Shrestha shows it would have been a simple substitution of parts according to known techniques to replace the RRC with MAC as ¶0153 these are all possible media for informing the UE of handover information.
Claims 3-5 pertain to the “L1 indication message” option of claim 2, which does not require support as it is a contingent limitation, and the “MAC indication message” option was rejected, thus any dependent claims pertaining to the L1 indication message also do not have patentable weight.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Liu”) (WO 2021051313 A1) in view of Blankenship et al. (“Blankenship”) (WO 2015066406 A1) and Shrestha et al. (“Shrestha”) (US 20210368407 A1), Cao (US 20230096215 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Liu-Blankenship-Shrestha teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 2.
Liu-Shrestha teaches MAC CE for handover but not indicating cell ID.
wherein, the MAC indication message indicates whether to apply the security configuration in the stored first configuration information or indicates a cell ID via an MAC CE (control element) [¶0072 target cell ID in MAC CE].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify a MAC-CE with the target ID information as in Cao who teaches in order that the UE may activate resources at the target cell ¶0072.
Regarding claim 7, Liu-Blankenship-Shrestha-Cao teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 6, wherein, when the MAC CE includes a cell ID, the first applying unit applies security configuration corresponding to the cell ID in the stored first configuration information [Liu ¶0149, UE updates configuration corresponding to apply when security configuration comprises security configuration corresponding to a selected or target cell, see ||0034-35 configuration includes security configuration, ¶0163 RRCreconfigurationComplete, combined with Cao who teaches MAC with ID information see rationale for combination as in claim 6].
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Liu”) (WO 2021051313 A1) in view of Blankenship et al. (“Blankenship”) (WO 2015066406 A1) and Fujishiro et al. (“Fujishiro”) (WO 2022030578 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Liu-Blankenship teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 8.
Liu teaches a first UE applying the security configuration but does not teach sending indication via target donor.
Fujishiro teaches wherein, the first indication information is transmitted by the source IAB donor node of the first IAB-node to the first terminal equipment via a target IAB donor node of the first IAB-node and the first IAB-node [Figure 9, steps S113-S115, ¶0072 of the translation “ the source donor gNB200S transmits a handover command (HO Command) to the target donor gNB200T via a tunnel between the source donor gNB200S and the target donor gNB200T” and ¶0073 “In step S114, the target donor gNB 200T transmits an RRC message (RRC Reconfiguration) including the handover command received in step S113 to the UE 100. Specifically, the target donor gNB 200T transmits the RRC message to the UE 100 via the IAB node 300. The UE 100 receives the RRC message” wherein handover command instructs handover thus applying a configuration of a donor cell ¶0053 thus indicating UE apply a configuration corresponding to handover to target donor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the indication information sent to the UE including indication to apply a configuration as in Fujishiro. Liu teaches sending configuration information for security configuration of a target donor and it would have been obvious to specify a handover command to effectively apply the configuration as in Fujishiro who teaches this is a conventional technique to make possible to realize the handover ¶0054.
Regarding claim 10, Liu-Blankenship-Fujishiro teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 9, wherein, the first indication information is transmitted by the source IAB donor node of the first IAB-node to the target IAB donor node of the first IAB-node via an Xn interface or an NG interface, and is transmitted by the target IAB donor node to the first IAB-node via an F1 interface [Fujishiro ¶0017-18, interfaces include Xn between gNBs and F1 between downstream devices, see rationale for combination as in claim 9].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Liu”) (WO 2021051313 A1) in view of Blankenship et al. (“Blankenship”) (WO 2015066406 A1) and Awada et al. (“Awada”) (WO 2018077416 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Liu-Blankenship teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1.
Liu teaches first indicate but not implicit.
Awada teaches a method of indicating handover is via the first indication information provided implicitly by changing a cell IDwhen a cell ID change of identical physical cell IDs (PCIs) detected by the first terminal equipment [¶0058, cell change or handover command includes PCI of target cell].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the implicit indication of handover as in Awada to avoid time of service interruption ¶0059.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Liu”) (WO 2021051313 A1) in view of Blankenship et al. (“Blankenship”) (WO 2015066406 A1) and Teyeb et al. (“Teyeb”) (US 20210211952 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Liu-Blankenship teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1.
Liu teaches a device for migrating IAB nodes but does not teach integrity detection.
Teyeb teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises: a first detector configured to perform integrity detection; and a second detector configured to perform cell selection or cell reselection when the integrity detection fails [¶0169, “a UE connected in MR-DC with the MN in a first RAT and the SN in a second RAT (e.g., NGEN-DC or NE-DC) will trigger a re-establishment procedure when the UE experiences a failure in the MCG. Such failures can include a radio link failure, a failure during handover, integrity verification check failure on SRB1/2, etc. The first step of the reestablishment procedure is for the UE to perform configured measurements on various cells, and then reselect the best cell based on the configured measurements”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the use of integrity detection to detect failure. Liu teaches migrating IAB and it would have been obvious to indicate an integrity detection failure as Teyeb teaches this allows for detection and recovery from a failure ¶0169.
Regarding claim 15, Liu-Blankenship-Teyeb teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the apparatus further comprises: a first processor configured to perform connection reestablishment [Teyeb ¶0169, “The first step of the reestablishment procedure is for the UE to perform configured measurements on various cells, and then reselect the best cell based on the configured measurements” see rationale for combination as in claim 14].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16-20 allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights