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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 2/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20, 22, and 24 are amended.
Claims 26-35 are canceled.
Claims 36-45 are newly added.
Priority
The present application does not claim for foreign priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/14/2024 and 3/13/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 2/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 26-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-25 and 36-45 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, it is suggested to replace “a reselection prohibition indication of at least one cell reselection prohibition associated with reselection of a first cell included in a first radio access network (RAN) notification area (RNA) based on the UE included in a second RNA being camped on the first cell
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.
Claims 9, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites the terms “configuration list request” and “configuration list” which lack clear definition. It is unclear what constitutes a “configuration list request”, how it is different from known UE context signaling, and what elements are included in the list. It is also unclear whether the “cell identity list” includes multiple cells or a single cell formatted as a list. The lack of structural or functional definition renders the scope ambiguous.
Regarding claim 22:
Claim 22 recites “perform, associated with a second network node and based on an access stratum (AS) context relocation operation and a path switch operation associated with a second network node, a UE resume operation to connect to the second network node.” and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the UE performs an access stratum (AS) context relocation operation and a path switch operation associated with the second network node before resuming operation to connect to the second network node.
Regarding claim 23:
Claim 23 is also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim 22, as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19-25, and 36-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (US 2026/0046720 A1, hereinafter Martin).
Regarding claim 1:
Martin teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a first network node (see, Martin: Fig. 9, gNB), comprising: one or more memories (see, Martin: para. [0202], memory of gNB); and one or more processors (see, Martin: para. [0202], processor of gNB), coupled with the one or more memories, configured to cause the first network node to:
communicate with a user equipment (UE) (see, Martin: Fig. 3, UE) during an active state of the UE in accordance with a first UE configuration (see, Martin: Fig. 3, “UE in RRC_CONNECTED CM-CONNECTED”; Steps 4a and 5); and
perform, associated with a second network node (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Last serving gNB) and based on a determination to switch the UE to an inactive state (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 4, “Send UE to INACTIVE”), at least one of an access stratum (AS) context relocation operation or a path switch operation associated with the second network node (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 6, “PATH SWITCH REQUEST”; Step 7, “PATH SWITCH REQUEST RESPONSE”).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin further teaches wherein at least one of the first network node or the second network node comprises a terrestrial network node (see, Martin: Figs. 15-18; para. [0153-0197]).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin further teaches wherein at least one of the first network node or the second network node comprises a non-terrestrial network node (see, Martin: Figs. 15-18; para. [0153-0197]).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the first network node to perform the AS context relocation operation, are configured to cause the first network node to:
provide, to the second network node, a UE context relocation request message (see, Martin: Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, Step 2, “RETRIEVE UE CONTEXT REQUEST”);
obtain, from the second network node, a UE context relocation request acknowledgement message (see, Martin: Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, Step 3, “RETRIEVE UE CONTEXT RESPONSE”); and
provide, to the UE and based on obtaining the UE context relocation request acknowledgement, a radio resource control (RRC) release message (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 8, “RRCRelease”; Fig. 10, Step 4, “RRCRelease”).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 4.
Martin teaches wherein the UE context relocation request message comprises at least one of an indication of a UE capability, an inactive radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) (I-RNTI) associated with the first network node, a second UE configuration, or a security parameter (see, Martin: Fig. 10, Step 2; para. [0136], “At 2, the gNB, if able to resolve the gNB identity contained in the I-RNTI, may request the last serving gNB to provide WTRU Context, providing the cause value received at 1.”).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 5.
Martin further teaches wherein the security parameter comprises at least one of a security key, a physical cell identifier, a cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) associated with the first network node, or a downlink absolute radio frequency channel number associated with the first network node (see, Martin: Fig. 10, Step 3; para. [0136], “At 3, the last serving gNB may store received information to be used in the next resume attempt (e.g., cell-RNTI and physical cell ID (PCI) related to the resumption cell), and may respond to the gNB with the RETRIEVE UE CONTEXT FAILURE message including an encapsulated RRC release message. The RRC release message may include Suspend Indication.”).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 4.
Martin teaches wherein the UE context relocation request acknowledgement message comprises a cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) associated with the second network node or a second UE configuration (see, Martin: Fig. 10, Step 3; para. [0136], “At 3, the last serving gNB may store received information to be used in the next resume attempt (e.g., cell-RNTI and physical cell ID (PCI) related to the resumption cell), and may respond to the gNB with the RETRIEVE UE CONTEXT FAILURE message including an encapsulated RRC release message. The RRC release message may include Suspend Indication.”).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 7.
Martin further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the first network node to provide the RRC release message (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 8, “RRCRelease”), are configured to cause the first network node to multiplex the RRC release message with an RRC reconfiguration message in at least one of an RRC layer, a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer, a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, a radio link control (RLC) layer, a medium access control (MAC) layer, or a physical layer (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 8; para. [0135], “At 8, the gNB may keep the WTRU in RRC_INACTIVE state by sending RRC release with suspend indication. At 9, the gNB may trigger the release of the WTRU resources at the last serving gNB.”).
Regarding claim 10:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the first network node to perform the AS context relocation operation, are configured to cause the first network node to provide a UE relocation complete message to the second network node (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 9, “UE CONTEXT RELEASE”; para. [0135], “At 9, the gNB may trigger the release of the WTRU resources at the last serving gNB.”).
Regarding claim 11:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the first network node to perform the path switch operation, are configured to cause the first network node to:
provide, to a core network (see, Martin: Fig. 9, AMF), a path switch request message (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 6, “PATH SWITCH REQUEST”); and
obtain, from the core network, a path switch request acknowledgment message (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 7, “PATH SWITCH RESPONSE”).
Regarding claim 12:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 11.
Martin further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the first network node to provide the path switch request message, are configured to cause the first network node to provide the path switch request message based on a completion of the AS context relocation operation (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 6, “PATH SWITCH REQUEST” after completion of UE CONTEXT retrieval/relocation operations in Steps 2 and 3. Also, see para. [0135], “RNA update may be performed. FIG. 9 is an example of a RNA update procedure with WTRU context relocation.”).
Regarding claim 13:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 11.
Martin further teaches wherein the path switch request message indicates at least one of a network node identifier associated with the second network node, a tunnel endpoint identifier, or a UE context relocation cause (see, Martin: para. [0135], “At 2, the gNB, if able to resolve the gNB identity contained in the I-RNTI, may request the last serving gNB to provide WTRU Context, providing the cause value received at 1.”).
Regarding claim 15:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the first network node to perform the AS context relocation operation, are configured to cause the first network node to perform the AS context relocation operation during an inactive state of the UE (see, Martin: Fig. 5; para. [0131], “FIG. 5 describes the WTRU triggered transition from RRC_INACTIVE to RRC_CONNECTED in case of WTRU context retrieval success.”).
Regarding claim 16:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first network node to maintain a UE AS context associated with the UE subsequent to performing the AS context relocation operation (see, Martin: para. [0135], “the last serving gNB may decide to move the WTRU to RRC_IDLE (and the procedure follows 3 and later of FIG. 11) or, if the WTRU may be still within the previously configured RNA, to keep the WTRU context in the last serving gNB and to keep the WTRU in RRC_INACTIVE (and the procedure follows 3 and later of FIG. 10).”; para. [0136], “FIG. 10 describes the RNA update procedure for the case when the WTRU may be still within the configured RNA and the last serving gNB decides not to relocate the WTRU context and to keep the WTRU in RRC_INACTIVE.”; para. [0159], “A base station (e.g., the last serving base station such as a gNB) may keep the WTRU context and/or the WTRU-associated connection(s) (e.g., WTRU-associated NG connection(s) with the serving AMF and/or UPF).”).
Regarding claim 17:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first network node to maintain, subsequent to performing the AS context relocation operation, a first user plane interface, associated with the UE, between a core network and the first network node (see, Martin: para. para. [0159], “A base station (e.g., the last serving base station such as a gNB) may keep the WTRU context and/or the WTRU-associated connection(s) (e.g., WTRU-associated NG connection(s) with the serving AMF and/or UPF).”).
Regarding claim 19:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first network node to provide, to the UE, configuration information indicative of a per-cell radio access network (RAN) notification area (RNA) timer, a per-cell-type RNA timer, or a per-orbit-type RNA timer (see, Martin: para. [0121], “At transition to RRC_INACTIVE the NG-RAN node may configure the WTRU with a periodic RNA Update timer value”).
Regarding claim 20:
Martin teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a second network node (see, Martin: Fig. 9, gNB), comprising: one or more memories (see, Martin: para. [0202], memory of gNB); and one or more processors (see, Martin: para. [0202], processor of gNB), coupled with the one or more memories, configured to cause the second network node to:
perform, associated with a first network node (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Last serving gNB) and based on a determination to switch a connected user equipment (UE) (see, Martin: Fig. 9, UE) to an inactive state (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 4, “Send UE to INACTIVE”), at least one of an access stratum (AS) context relocation operation or a path switch operation associated with the second network node (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 6, “PATH SWITCH REQUEST”; Step 7, “PATH SWITCH REQUEST RESPONSE”); and communicate with the UE based on the at least one of the AS context relocation operation or the path switch operation (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 8, “RRCRelease”).
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 20 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 3. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 22:
Martin teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (see, Martin: Fig. 5, UE; Fig. 1B, WRTU 102), comprising: one or more memories (see, Martin: Fig. 1B, Memory 130 and 132); and one or more processors (see, Martin: Fig. 1B, Processor 118), coupled with the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to:
communicate with a first network node (see, Martin: Fig. 3, gNB; Fig. 5, Last serving gNB) during an active state of the UE in accordance with a first UE configuration (see, Martin: Fig. 3, “UE in RRC_CONNECTED CM-CONNECTED”; Steps 4a and 5); and
perform, associated with a second network node (see, Martin: Fig. 5, gNB) and based on an access stratum (AS) context relocation operation and a path switch operation associated with a second network node (see, Martin: Fig. 5, Step 2, “RETRIEVE UE CONTEXT REQUEST”; Step 3, “RETRIEVE UE CONTEXT RESPONSE”), a UE resume operation to connect to the second network node (see, Martin: Fig. 5, Step 4, “RRCResume”).
Regarding claim 23:
Claim 23 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 22 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 3. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 24:
Martin teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a core network (see, Martin: Fig. 9, AMF), comprising: one or more memories (see, Martin: para. [0202], memory of AMF); and one or more processors (see, Martin: para. [0202], processor of AMF), coupled with the one or more memories, configured to cause the core network to:
obtain, from a first network node (see, Martin: Fig. 9, gNB) and associated with a user equipment (UE) (see, Martin: Fig. 9, UE), a path switch request message associated with a path switch operation (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 6, “PATH SWITCH REQUEST”); and perform, based on the path switch request message, the path switch operation in association with a second network node (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Last serving gNB) (see, Martin: Fig. 9, Step 7, “PATH SWITCH REQUEST RESPONSE”; Step 9, “UE CONTEXT RELEASE”).
Regarding claim 25:
Claim 25 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 24 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 3. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 36:
Claim 36 recites the method which corresponds to the apparatus of claim 1, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 36 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 37:
Claim 37 is directed towards the method of claim 36 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 2. Therefore, claim 37 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 38:
Claim 38 is directed towards the method of claim 36 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 3. Therefore, claim 38 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 39:
Claim 39 is directed towards the method of claim 36 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 4. Therefore, claim 39 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 40:
Claim 40 is directed towards the method of claim 39 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 5. Therefore, claim 40 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 41:
Claim 41 is directed towards the method of claim 40 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 6. Therefore, claim 41 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 42:
Claim 42 is directed towards the method of claim 39 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 7. Therefore, claim 42 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 43:
Claim 43 is directed towards the method of claim 42 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 8. Therefore, claim 43 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 44:
Claim 44 recites the method which corresponds to the apparatus of claim 20, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 44 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 45:
Claim 45 is directed towards the method of claim 44 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 21. Therefore, claim 45 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 21 above.
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.
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.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of You (US 2022/0110028 A1, hereinafter You).
Regarding claim 14:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first network node to select the second network node based on a target selection parameter, wherein the target selection parameter is associated with at least one of a capability of the UE, a location of the UE, a connection history of the UE, a velocity of the UE, a type of the UE, a measurement report obtained from the UE, or a network load associated with the second network node.
In the same field of endeavor, You teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first network node (e.g., a source base station) to select the second network node (e.g., a target cell) based on a target selection parameter, wherein the target selection parameter is associated with at least one of a capability of the UE, a location of the UE, a connection history of the UE, a velocity of the UE, a type of the UE, a measurement report obtained from the UE, or a network load associated with the second network node (see, You: para. [0003], “A source base station can select a target base station for handover based on the measurement report.”; Fig. 7 and para. [0120], “Satellite 1 may adjust the measurement report based on a difference between D1 and D2, that is D2−D1, and then based on the adjusted measurement report, perform cell handover, such as the operations performed by the source base station as illustrated in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, to select a suitable target cell for the terminal device.”; Fig. 8 and para. [0142], “At 810, a first satellite receives a measurement report of cell measurement transmitted by a terminal device.”; para. [0143], “At 820, the first satellite determines a second satellite according to a satellite ephemeris.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Martin in combination of the teachings of Purkayastha in order for a source base station can select a target base station for handover based on the measurement report from the terminal device (see, You: para. [0003]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Ohlsson et al. (US 2021/0385727 A1, hereinafter Ohlsson).
Regarding claim 18:
As discussed above, Martin teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Martin does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first network node to provide, to the UE, a reselection prohibition indication of at least one cell reselection prohibition associated with reselection of a first cell included in a first radio access network (RAN) notification area (RNA) based on the UE being camped on a first cell included in a second RNA.
In the same field of endeavor, Ohlsson teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first network node to provide, to the UE, a reselection prohibition indication (see, Ohlsson: para. [0036], “the RAN 10A may proactively transmit access barring information 22 (e.g., within system information 24) that indicates an access category of the wireless device 14 is barred from accessing the system 10.”) of at least one cell reselection prohibition associated with reselection of a first cell included in a first radio access network (RAN) notification area (RNA) based on the UE being camped on a first cell included in a second RNA (see, Ohlsson: para. [0037], “If the wireless device 14 is supposed to perform an RNA update (i.e., an RNA update has been “triggered”) (e.g., due to moving to a new RNA or upon expiration of a periodic RNA update timer), but the RAN 10A does not allow (i.e., bars) such an RNA update at the moment, the wireless device 14 deems an RNA update as pending.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Martin in combination of the teachings of Ohlsson in order to avoid unnecessary control signaling and radio resource loading, as well as conserve device power consumption and device processing resources when the out-of-coverage state of the wireless device would have anyway prevented the RNA update from succeeding (see, Ohlsson: para. [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights