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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5 on pages 14-15 regarding Song (US 2023/0133083 A1) have been considered but are moot based on new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Additionally, regarding Shuai (US 2020/0351963 A1), applicant argues on page 15 “SHU AI discloses a path switch message being sent by the CU-CF rather than by a distributed unit, and that the path switch message is sent to the target CU-UP rather than a DRS. By contrast, independent claim 1, which claim 5 depends from, recites that a distributed unit is configured to "transmit, to a data routing service (DRS) and after completion of a handover to the distributed unit, a path switch request message"” [emphasis by applicant]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
While applicant’s arguments are directed to Shua, the current rejection below is a combination of Persson et al. (WO 2020/222692 A1) and Shua. See MPEP 2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence, IV. ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY, One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 include “wherein the one or more processors, to receive, from the distributed unit, the path switch request message, are individually or collectively configured to receive, from the distributed unit” which should be “wherein the one or more processors”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7, 9, 26, 28, and 32 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7: line 3 includes “transmit another path switch message to a service server”, however, the metes and bound is unclear as to whether the other path switch message is A) retransmission, B) another handover, C) some type of dual connection, D) some type of rejection, E) a path switch acknowledgement, F) some type of failure, or G) something else. As an example, para. 128 of the specification explicitly indicates “The service server may include a DRS” and no other examples of what a “service server” may be and thus, whether the intent is regarding the same DRS of independent claim 1, another DRS, some type of virtualization, some other non-descript “service server”, or something else. Examination continued on the assumption some type of repetition / repeated action is performed.
Regarding claim 9: the claim, dependent upon claim 7, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 26: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 28: the claim, dependent upon claim 26, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 26.
Regarding claim 32: the claim, dependent upon claim 7, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 17, 20-21, 26-29, 32, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al. (WO 2020/222692 A1) hereinafter Persson in view of Shuai et al. (US 2020/0351963 A1) hereinafter Shuai.
Regarding claim 1, Persson teaches a unit for wireless communication (network node 660 with distributed components for wireless communication; page 16 line 21 - page 17 line 6 and Fig. 6, network node 660 corresponds to access node 104; page 12 lines 13-14, access node as virtualized; page 26 lines 9-28), comprising: one or more memories (memory 680; page 16 lines 21-29 and Fig. 6); and one or more processors (processing circuitry 670; page 16 lines 21-29 and Fig. 6), coupled to the one or more memories (memory connected to processing circuity executing software; lines 21-19 and Fig. 6), individually or collectively configured to: transmit, to a data routing service (DRS) and upon completion of a connected state with a user equipment (UE), a path switch request message indicating to configure a path between the DRS and the unit (path switch request (step 514) sent from access node 104 to network node 106 after RRCConnectionReconfigurationComplete (Handover Complete [completion of connected state]) with user equipment (UE) (steps 509-511); page 13 lines 9-30 and Fig. 5a, network node 106 corresponds to Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) and/or a User Plane Function (UPF) [DRS]; page 12 lines 10-11); receive an acknowledgement of the path switch request message (receive path switch request acknowledgement (step 517); page 14 lines 7-8 and Fig. 5b); and communicate with the DRS on the path (access node 104 and network node 106 communicate; and Fig. 5b, use of path between network node 106 and access node 104 instead of access node 103 after path switch; page 13 lines 30-32).
While Persson discloses path switching from source access node to a target access node which at least suggests some type of identification of a target, Persson does not explicitly disclose distributed unit; wherein the path switch request message includes an address of the distributed unit for forwarding packets by the DRS.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shuai teaches distributed unit (target distributed unit (DU); para. 42, wireless terminal communicating with radio access network (RAN); para. 100, target DU serving wireless terminal; para. 42); wherein the path switch request message includes an address of the distributed unit for forwarding packets by the DRS (path switch message includes address/ID of target distributed node to set up user plane [packets] tunnel; para. 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Shuai to the system of Persson, where Persson’s forwarding of packets during handover (page 14 lines 18-20) along with Shuai’s handover (para. [43, 69, 140]) improves user satisfaction by reducing latency.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Persson further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the DRS, are individually or collectively configured to communicate user data with the DRS (access node 104 communicates uplink/downlink packet data with network node 106 [DRS]; page 14 lines 6-8 Fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Persson further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to transmit another path switch request message to a service server (uplink/downlink packet data at source 103 switches to UL/DL packet data at target 104 after path switch request to network node; Figs. 5a-5b, UL/DL packet data at (new) source 104 switches to UL/DL packet data at (new) target 103 after second path switch request after second handover decision 501; Figs. 5a-5b).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Persson further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the path switch request message to the DRS, are individually or collectively configured to transmit the path switch request message to the DRS via a mobility service (path switch request (step 514) sent from access node 104 to network node 106; page 13 lines 9-30 and Fig. 5a, network node 106 corresponds to Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) and a UPF [DRS]; page 12 lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 7.
While Persson discloses path switching from source access node to a target access node which at least suggests some type of identification of a target, Persson does not explicitly disclose, wherein the other path switch request includes at least one of: an address of the distributed unit for forwarding packets by the service server, one or more other distributed unit addresses for forwarding packets by the service server, or information indicating whether a service is not accepted by the distributed unit for handover.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shuai further teaches wherein the other path switch request includes at least one of: an address of the distributed unit for forwarding packets by the service server (path switch message includes address/ID of target distributed node to set up user plane [packets] tunnel; para. 42, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), one or more other distributed unit addresses for forwarding packets by the service server, or information indicating whether a service is not accepted by the distributed unit for handover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Shuai to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Shuai’s handover (para. [43, 69, 140]) improves user satisfaction by reducing latency.
Regarding claim 10, Persson teaches a data routing service (DRS) for wireless communication (network node 106 corresponds to Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) and/or a User Plane Function (UPF) [DRS]; page 12 lines 10-11 and Fig. 5a, wireless communication; page 16 line 21 - page 17 line 6 and Fig. 6), comprising: one or more memories (memory 680; page 16 lines 21-29 and Fig. 6); and one or more processors (processing circuitry 670; page 16 lines 21-29 and Fig. 6), coupled to the one or more memories (memory connected to processing circuity executing software; lines 21-19 and Fig. 6), individually or collectively configured to: receive, from a unit and after completion of a connected state between the unit and a user equipment (UE), a path switch request message indicating to configure a path between the DRS and the unit, (network node 106 receives path switch request (step 514) sent from access node 104 after RRCConnectionReconfigurationComplete (Handover Complete [completion of connected state]) with user equipment (UE) (steps 509-511); page 13 lines 9-30 and Fig. 5a, network node 106 corresponds to AMF) and/or UPF [DRS]; page 12 lines 10-11); transmit an acknowledgement of the path switch request message (transmit path switch request acknowledgement (step 517); page 14 lines 7-8 and Fig. 5b); and configure the path to the distributed unit (access node 104 and network node 106 communicate; and Fig. 5b, use [configure] of path between network node 106 and access node 104 instead of access node 103 after path switch; page 13 lines 30-32).
While Persson discloses path switching from source access node to a target access node which at least suggests some type of identification of a target, Persson does not explicitly disclose distributed; wherein the path switch request message includes an address of the distributed unit for forwarding packets by the DRS.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shuai teaches distributed (target distributed unit (DU); para. 42, wireless terminal communicating with radio access network (RAN); para. 100, target DU serving wireless terminal; para. 42); wherein the path switch request message includes an address of the distributed unit for forwarding packets by the DRS (path switch message includes address/ID of target distributed node to set up user plane [packets] tunnel; para. 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Shuai to the system of Persson, where Persson’s forwarding of packets during handover (page 14 lines 18-20) along with Shuai’s handover (para. [43, 69, 140]) improves user satisfaction by reducing latency.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 10.
Persson further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to communicate user data with the distributed unit (network node 106 [DRS] communicates uplink/downlink packet data with access node 104; page 14 lines 6-8 Fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 10.
Persson further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to receive, from the distributed unit, the path switch request message, are individually or collectively configured to receive, from the distributed unit, the path switch request message via a mobility service (path switch request (step 514) sent from access node 104 to network node 106; page 13 lines 9-30 and Fig. 5a, network node 106 corresponds to Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) and a UPF [DRS]; page 12 lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 36, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 32.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Claim(s) 5, 14, 24, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson in view of Shuai, and further in view of Zhu et al. (WO 2022/206775 A1) hereinafter Zhu.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of Persson and Shuai discloses information in the path switch request, the combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the path switch request message further includes at least one of: information indicating an accepted data session, information indicating a rejected data session, or a quality of service (QoS) flow identifier (QFI) for the address.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches wherein the path switch request message further includes at least one of: information indicating an accepted data session, information indicating a rejected data session, or a quality of service (QoS) flow identifier (QFI) for the address (target gNB sends path switch request including quality of service (QoS) flow identifier (QFI) to AMF; para. 251, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Zhu to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Zhu’s handover (para. [05, 08]) improves user satisfaction by ensuring reliability of multicast broadcast service (MBS) data.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 10.
While the combination of Persson and Shuai discloses information in the path switch request, the combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the path switch request message further includes at least one of: information indicating an accepted data session, information indicating a rejected data session, or a quality of service (QoS) flow identifier (QFI) for the address.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches wherein the path switch request message further includes at least one of: information indicating an accepted data session, information indicating a rejected data session, or a quality of service (QoS) flow identifier (QFI) for the address (target gNB sends path switch request including quality of service (QoS) flow identifier (QFI) to AMF; para. 251, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Zhu to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Zhu’s handover (para. [05, 08]) improves user satisfaction by ensuring reliability of multicast broadcast service (MBS) data.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14.
Claim(s) 6, 15, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson in view of Shuai, and further in view of Myhre et al. (US 2019/0075606 A1) hereinafter Myhre.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the acknowledgement indicates the address of the DRS.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Myhre teaches wherein the acknowledgement indicates the address of the DRS (path switch response for path switch request for new UPF includes UPF address; para. 104 and Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Myhre to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Myhre’s reallocation (para. 81-82) improves the wireless system by reducing resource waste.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 10.
The combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the acknowledgement indicates the address of the DRS.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Myhre teaches wherein the acknowledgement indicates the address of the DRS (path switch response for path switch request for new UPF includes UPF address; para. 104 and Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Myhre to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Myhre’s reallocation (para. 81-82) improves the wireless system by reducing resource waste.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Claim(s) 9, 18-19, 30, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson in view of Shuai, and further in view of Qiao et al. (WO 2024/097304 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 63/421,286 filed 11/1/2022).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 7.
While the combination of Persson and Shuai variously disclose buffered data, the combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to receive, from the service server, buffered data associated with the handover.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Qiao teaches the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to receive, from the service server, buffered data associated with the handover (access network (AN) receives buffered data from UPF/ session management function (SMF)/AMF; para. 159 and Fig. 11 step 1110, performing RRC reconfiguration; para. 165 and Fig. 11 step 1170, performing RRC reconfiguration for handover; para. 260, handover to target RAN; para. 246).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Qiao to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Qiao’s open-source network functions (NFs) (para. 203) improves compatibility between devices from different providers by common/open standardization.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 10.
While the combination of Persson and Shuai variously disclose buffered data, the combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to transmit, to the distributed unit, buffered data associated with the handover.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Qiao teaches wherein the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to transmit, to the distributed unit, buffered data associated with the handover (UPF/ session management function (SMF)/AMF transmits buffered data to access network (AN); para. 159 and Fig. 11 step 1110, performing RRC reconfiguration; para. 165 and Fig. 11 step 1170, performing RRC reconfiguration for handover; para. 260, handover to target RAN; para. 246).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Qiao to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Qiao’s open-source network functions (NFs) (para. 203) improves compatibility between devices from different providers by common/open standardization.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Persson, Shuai, and Qiao teaches the limitation of previous claim 18.
Persson further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to: receive, from a source distributed unit of the handover and prior to transmitting the buffered data, a handover indication (source access node 103 transmits handover request to target node 104 (step 502) prior to handover processing; page 12 lines 17-19 and Fig. 5a).
While the combination of Persson and Shuai variously disclose buffered data, the combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose buffer the buffered data in association with the handover indication.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Qiao further teaches buffer the buffered data in association with the handover indication (UPF/SMF/AMF transmits buffered [at least suggesting UPF/AMF buffering] data to AN; para. 159 and Fig. 11 step 1110.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Qiao to the modified system of Persson, Shuai, and Qiao, where Persson, Shuai, and Qiao’s modified system along with Qiao’s open-source network functions (NFs) (para. 203) improves compatibility between devices from different providers by common/open standardization.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 10.
While the combination of Persson and Shuai discloses end marker received at source on old path, the combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to: transmit, to a source distributed unit associated with the handover, an end marker packet.
Qiao teaches wherein the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to: transmit, to a source distributed unit associated with the handover, an end marker packet (UPF sends end marker on old path [associated with handover] to source; para. [296, 333, 378, 443, 492]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Qiao to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Qiao’s open-source network functions (NFs) (para. 203) improves compatibility between devices from different providers by common/open standardization.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 19.
Claim(s) 33, 35, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson in view of Shuai, and further in view of Zong et al. (US 2024/0349150 A1) hereinafter Zong.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of Persson and Shuai variously disclose tunnel id in a path switch message, the combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the acknowledgement indicates tunnel information for the DRS for each accepted data session.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zong teaches wherein the acknowledgement indicates tunnel information for the DRS for each accepted data session (switch preparation response includes tunnel information corresponding to each packet data unit (PDU) session; para. 314).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Zong to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Zong’s services deployed on a satellite (para. [03, 120]) improves user experience by reducing delay.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Persson and Shuai teaches the limitation of previous claim 10.
While the combination of Persson and Shuai variously disclose tunnel id in a path switch message, the combination of Persson and Shuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the acknowledgement indicates tunnel information for the DRS for each accepted data session.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zong teaches wherein the acknowledgement indicates tunnel information for the DRS for each accepted data session (switch preparation response includes tunnel information corresponding to each packet data unit (PDU) session; para. 314).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Zong to the modified system of Persson and Shuai, where Persson and Shuai’s modified system along with Zong’s services deployed on a satellite (para. [03, 120]) improves user experience by reducing delay.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 33.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schliwa-Bertling (US 2023/0362740 A1) discloses a 5G multicast broadcast service handover.
Yi et al. (US 2026/0032520 A1) discloses a distributed unit migration method and control apparatus, and communication system.
Barac et al. (US 2024/0187953 A1) discloses handling configurations in source integrated access backhaul (IAB) donor during temporary topology adaptations.
Luo et al. (US 2022/0014976 A1) discloses a system and method for IAB handovers.
Eklöf et al. (US 2022/0022121 A1) discloses handling of measurement configuration upon conditional mobility execution.
Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 2022/0015001 A1) discloses improved techniques for conditional handover and bi-casting.
WO 2020/222692 A1 (Persson), and WO 2022/206775 A1 (Zhu and EPO website translation thereof) are included in the instant OA. WO 2024/097304 A1 and US Provisional Application No. 63/421,286 (Qiao), included in the OA of 7/30/2025, are not included in the instant OA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights