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 .
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.
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.
1. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesterinen et al (2018/0115927) in view of Ryden et al (2023/0237181) further in view of Xing et al (2024/0334282) OR Byun et al (2019/0394783).
Regarding claim 1. Vesterinen teaches a method comprising:
sending, by a first base station and to a first wireless device, a handover
command or handover of the first wireless device from the first base station to a
second base station (figure 4, 0070 – at steps 414-16 the source BS sends HO
command to targe BS to handover the UE and at step 420 the target BS may send a
HO confirmation to the source BS confirming a HO to the target cell wherein the HO confirming message may indicate the QoS policy profile selected by the target BS to be used by the target BS to provide service to the UE after HO. For example, the selected QoS policy profile selected for use by the target BS may be the same as the QoS policy profile used by source BS, an upgrade (e.g., providing a higher QoS/service quality such as based on less cell congestion/more availability of radio resources at the targe BS) or a downgrade (e.g., providing a lower QoS/service quality).
Vesterinen does not teach receiving, from the second base station and after the handover of the first wireless device, one or more messages comprising one or more fields indicating a change in performance of, at the second base station that is caused by the handover of the first wireless device.
Ryden teaches the target provides reward (feedback) on the UE performance after handover (0335, 0388). If the UE experiences low throughput or poor radio coverage once handed over to the target cell … it is important to design a solution enabling a feedback mechanism after HO, where the UE and the target node provide measurements relative to the performance of the target cell serving the UE. This enables the source node to update HO decisions frequently based on the received feedback from the target node. The feedback information for AI/ML function that performs HO decisions (0336, 0389). The feedback provided from the targe node to the source node comprises: dwelling time in a cell, measurement of QoS parameters experienced at target (instantaneous/mean), UE traffic pattern after HO, resource utilization used by UE, experienced latency, radio efficiency at target cell (bits per second per hertz) (0337-0344, 0390-397). Using AI/ML to predict whether for a group of UEs and services (e.g., for UEs in a certain network slice using a service with 5QI==x) the target QoS requirements will be fulfilled or not. Such prediction can be relative to a specific time window into the future (0361) and the network may reconfigure resource partition policies per slice at the RAN in order to ensure that the SLAs not fulfilled can be fulfilled by means of a higher amount of resources to be utilized (0363).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen to feedback information from the target node to the source node, after UE is handed over as taught by Ryden enabling the source node to update its handover decisions frequently.
Regarding amendment dated 2/12/2026. Applicant amends and argues prior art does not teach receiving from the target/second eNB and after UE Handover, feedback information/message regarding per slice performance, of the UE, at the target/second eNB.
However, Ryden teaches using AI/ML to predict whether for a group of UEs and services (e.g., for UEs in a certain network slice using a service with 5QI==x) the target QoS requirements will be fulfilled or not. Such prediction can be relative to a specific time window into the future (0361) and the network may reconfigure resource partition policies per slice at the RAN in order to ensure that the SLAs not fulfilled can be fulfilled by means of a higher amount of resources to be utilized (0363-0364).
Xing teaches per slice performance of an UE (0004, 0007, 0014) to ensure service experience of post-network slice handover of a UE (0006, 0025). Xing teaches the network slice configuration feedback message includes the failure cause value, and the failure cause value indicates the specific cause of the network slice handover failure. For example, the failure cause value is that the target network slice is overloaded and/or the target network slice cannot meet the service requirements of all UEs in the original network slice because a quantity of UEs in the original network slice is excessively large (or a performance requirement is excessively high) (Table 4, 0200-0203) which enables the network to group UEs to be handed over and handing over UEs (for example 60%) to the target network slice (0204) and/or enables the server to add one or more network slices (0205-0206).
Byun teaches Mobility Robust Optimization (MRO). For example, upon detecting the connection failure, a handover related parameter for a real time service needs to be adjusted as fast and correct as possible considering the slice (0073). Base station 1 and base station 2 exchange information on a per slice basis (figure 7, 0077-0078). Figure 11 depicts MRO per slice (0017, 0098). In step S1120, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0101). In step S1160, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0106). After receiving the HO report message or the new message from BS2 by BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after successful handover from BS1 to BS2 (0108). Figure 12 depicts MRO per slice (0109). In step S1220, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0112). In step S1260, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0117). Upon receiving the handover report message or the new message from the BS2 by the BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after a successful handover from the BS1 to the BS2 (0119).
It would have been extremely obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen in view of Ryden to feedback a failure cause indicating network slice handover failure as taught by Xing or to feedback a handover failure report including slice ID as taught by Byun enabling the network update its handover decisions more accurately (as taught by Xing) or enabling the network to adjust real time related handover parameter(s) more quickly (Byun at 0073).
Regarding claim 8. Vesterinen teaches a method comprising:
performing, by a first base station, a handover of a first wireless device from the
first base station to a second base station (figure 4, 0070 – at steps 414-16 the
source BS sends HO command to targe BS to handover the UE and at step 420 the
target BS may send a HO confirmation to the source BS confirming a HO to the target
cell wherein the HO confirming message may indicate the QoS policy profile selected by
the target BS to be used by the target BS to provide service to the UE after HO. For
example, the selected QoS policy profile selected for use by the target BS may be the
same as the QoS policy profile used by source BS, an upgrade (e.g., providing a higher
QoS/service quality such as based on less cell congestion/more availability of radio
resources at the targe BS) or a downgrade (e.g., providing a lower QoS/service quality).
Vesterinen does not teach receiving, from the second base station, feedback information indicating a change in performance of the second base station that is caused by the handover of the first wireless device.
Ryden teaches the target provides reward (feedback) on the UE performance after handover (0335, 0388). If the UE experiences low throughput or poor radio coverage once handed over to the target cell … it is important to design a solution enabling a feedback mechanism after HO, where the UE and the target node provide measurements relative to the performance of the target cell serving the UE. This enables the source node to update HO decisions frequently based on the received feedback from the target node. The feedback information for AI/ML function that performs HO decisions (0336, 0389). The feedback provided from the targe node to the source node comprises: dwelling time in a cell, measurement of QoS parameters experienced at target (instantaneous/mean), UE traffic pattern after HO, resource utilization used by UE, experienced latency, radio efficiency at target cell (bits per second per hertz) (0337-0344, 0390-397).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen to feedback information from the target node to the source node, after UE is handed over as taught by Ryden enabling the source node to update its handover decisions frequently.
Regarding amendment dated 2/12/2026. Applicant amends and argues prior art does not teach receiving from the second eNB feedback information/message indicating per slice performance, of the UE, at the second eNB.
However, Ryden teaches using AI/ML to predict whether for a group of UEs and services (e.g., for UEs in a certain network slice using a service with 5QI==x) the target QoS requirements will be fulfilled or not. Such prediction can be relative to a specific time window into the future (0361) and the network may reconfigure resource partition policies per slice at the RAN in order to ensure that the SLAs not fulfilled can be fulfilled by means of a higher amount of resources to be utilized (0363-0364).
Xing teaches per slice performance of an UE (0004, 0007, 0014) to ensure service experience of post-network slice handover of a UE (0006, 0025). Xing teaches the network slice configuration feedback message includes the failure cause value, and the failure cause value indicates the specific cause of the network slice handover failure. For example, the failure cause value is that the target network slice is overloaded and/or the target network slice cannot meet the service requirements of all UEs in the original network slice because a quantity of UEs in the original network slice is excessively large (or a performance requirement is excessively high) (Table 4, 0200-0203) which enables the network to group UEs to be handed over and handing over UEs (for example 60%) to the target network slice (0204) and/or enables the server to add one or more network slices (0205-0206).
Byun teaches Mobility Robust Optimization (MRO). For example, upon detecting the connection failure, a handover related parameter for a real time service needs to be adjusted as fast and correct as possible considering the slice (0073). Base station 1 and base station 2 exchange information on a per slice basis (figure 7, 0077-0078). Figure 11 depicts MRO per slice (0017, 0098). In step S1120, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0101). In step S1160, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0106). After receiving the HO report message or the new message from BS2 by BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after successful handover from BS1 to BS2 (0108). Figure 12 depicts MRO per slice (0109). In step S1220, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0112). In step S1260, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0117). Upon receiving the handover report message or the new message from the BS2 by the BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after a successful handover from the BS1 to the BS2 (0119).
It would have been extremely obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen in view of Ryden to feedback a failure cause indicating network slice handover failure as taught by Xing or to feedback a handover failure report including slice ID as taught by Byun enabling the network update its handover decisions more accurately (as taught by Xing) or enabling the network to adjust real time related handover parameter(s) more quickly (Byun at 0073).
Regarding claim 15. Vesterinen teaches a method comprising:
performing, by a second base station, a handover of a first wireless device from a
first base station to the second base station (figure 4, 0070 – at steps 414-16 the
source BS sends HO command to targe BS to handover the UE and at step 420 the
target BS may send a HO confirmation to the source BS confirming a HO to the target
cell wherein the HO confirming message may indicate the QoS policy profile selected by
the target BS to be used by the target BS to provide service to the UE after HO. For
example, the selected QoS policy profile selected for use by the target BS may be the
same as the QoS policy profile used by source BS, an upgrade (e.g., providing a higher
QoS/service quality such as based on less cell congestion/more availability of radio
resources at the targe BS) or a downgrade (e.g., providing a lower QoS/service quality).
Vesterinen does not teach transmitting, to the first base station, feedback information indicating a change in performance of the second base station that is caused by the handover of the first wireless device.
Ryden teaches the target provides reward (feedback) on the UE performance after handover (0335, 0388). If the UE experiences low throughput or poor radio coverage once handed over to the target cell … it is important to design a solution enabling a feedback mechanism after HO, where the UE and the target node provide measurements relative to the performance of the target cell serving the UE. This enables the source node to update HO decisions frequently based on the received feedback from the target node. The feedback information for AI/ML function that performs HO decisions (0336, 0389). The feedback provided from the targe node to the source node comprises: dwelling time in a cell, measurement of QoS parameters experienced at target (instantaneous/mean), UE traffic pattern after HO, resource utilization used by UE, experienced latency, radio efficiency at target cell (bits per second per hertz) (0337-0344, 0390-397).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen to feedback information from the target node to the source node, after UE is handed over as taught by Ryden enabling the source node to update its handover decisions frequently.
Regarding amendment dated 2/12/2026. Applicant amends and argues prior art does not teach transmitting, to the first BS, feedback information indicating per slice performance, of the first UE, at the second BS.
However, Ryden teaches using AI/ML to predict whether for a group of UEs and services (e.g., for UEs in a certain network slice using a service with 5QI==x) the target QoS requirements will be fulfilled or not. Such prediction can be relative to a specific time window into the future (0361) and the network may reconfigure resource partition policies per slice at the RAN in order to ensure that the SLAs not fulfilled can be fulfilled by means of a higher amount of resources to be utilized (0363-0364).
Xing teaches per slice performance of an UE (0004, 0007, 0014) to ensure service experience of post-network slice handover of a UE (0006, 0025). Xing teaches the network slice configuration feedback message includes the failure cause value, and the failure cause value indicates the specific cause of the network slice handover failure. For example, the failure cause value is that the target network slice is overloaded and/or the target network slice cannot meet the service requirements of all UEs in the original network slice because a quantity of UEs in the original network slice is excessively large (or a performance requirement is excessively high) (Table 4, 0200-0203) which enables the network to group UEs to be handed over and handing over UEs (for example 60%) to the target network slice (0204) and/or enables the server to add one or more network slices (0205-0206).
Byun teaches Mobility Robust Optimization (MRO). For example, upon detecting the connection failure, a handover related parameter for a real time service needs to be adjusted as fast and correct as possible considering the slice (0073). Base station 1 and base station 2 exchange information on a per slice basis (figure 7, 0077-0078). Figure 11 depicts MRO per slice (0017, 0098). In step S1120, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0101). In step S1160, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0106). After receiving the HO report message or the new message from BS2 by BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after successful handover from BS1 to BS2 (0108). Figure 12 depicts MRO per slice (0109). In step S1220, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0112). In step S1260, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0117). Upon receiving the handover report message or the new message from the BS2 by the BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after a successful handover from the BS1 to the BS2 (0119).
It would have been extremely obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen in view of Ryden to feedback a failure cause indicating network slice handover failure as taught by Xing or to feedback a handover failure report including slice ID as taught by Byun enabling the network update its handover decisions more accurately (as taught by Xing) or enabling the network to adjust real time related handover parameter(s) more quickly (Byun at 0073).
Regarding claims 2 and 16. Vesterinen does not teach wherein the change in performance of the second base station comprises at least one of:
a change of an amount of energy consumption
a change of an amount of resource utilization
a change in quality of service (QoS)
Ryden teaches the target provides reward (feedback) on the UE performance after handover (0335, 0388). If the UE experiences low throughput or poor radio coverage once handed over to the target cell … it is important to design a solution enabling a feedback mechanism after HO, where the UE and the target node provide measurements relative to the performance of the target cell serving the UE. This enables the source node to update HO decisions frequently based on the received feedback from the target node. The feedback information for AI/ML function that performs HO decisions (0336, 0389). The feedback provided from the targe node to the source node comprises: dwelling time in a cell, measurement of QoS parameters experienced at target (instantaneous/mean), UE traffic pattern after HO, resource utilization used by UE, experienced latency, radio efficiency at target cell (bits per second per hertz) (0337-0344, 0390-397).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen to feedback information from the target node to the source node, after UE is handed over as taught by Ryden enabling the source node to update its handover decisions frequently.
Regarding amendment 2/12/2026. Vesterinen in view of Ryden do not explicitly teach feeding back information regarding per slice.
Xing teaches per slice performance of an UE (0004, 0007, 0014) to ensure service experience of post-network slice handover of a UE (0006, 0025). Xing teaches the network slice configuration feedback message includes the failure cause value, and the failure cause value indicates the specific cause of the network slice handover failure. For example, the failure cause value is that the target network slice is overloaded and/or the target network slice cannot meet the service requirements of all UEs in the original network slice because a quantity of UEs in the original network slice is excessively large (or a performance requirement is excessively high) (Table 4, 0200-0203) which enables the network to group UEs to be handed over and handing over UEs (for example 60%) to the target network slice (0204) and/or enables the server to add one or more network slices (0205-0206).
Byun teaches Mobility Robust Optimization (MRO). For example, upon detecting the connection failure, a handover related parameter for a real time service needs to be adjusted as fast and correct as possible considering the slice (0073). Base station 1 and base station 2 exchange information on a per slice basis (figure 7, 0077-0078). Figure 11 depicts MRO per slice (0017, 0098). In step S1120, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0101). In step S1160, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0106). After receiving the HO report message or the new message from BS2 by BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after successful handover from BS1 to BS2 (0108). Figure 12 depicts MRO per slice (0109). In step S1220, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0112). In step S1260, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0117). Upon receiving the handover report message or the new message from the BS2 by the BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after a successful handover from the BS1 to the BS2 (0119).
It would have been extremely obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen in view of Ryden to feedback a failure cause indicating network slice handover failure as taught by Xing or to feedback a handover failure report including slice ID as taught by Byun enabling the network update its handover decisions more accurately (as taught by Xing) or enabling the network to adjust real time related handover parameter(s) more quickly (Byun at 0073).
Regarding claims 3 and 11. Vesterinen does not teach performing, by the first base station and based on the one or more messages, a handover of a second wireless device from the first base station to the second base station.
Ryden teaches the target provides reward (feedback) on the UE performance after handover (0335, 0388). If the UE experiences low throughput or poor radio coverage once handed over to the target cell … it is important to design a solution enabling a feedback mechanism after HO, where the UE and the target node provide measurements relative to the performance of the target cell serving the UE. This enables the source node to update HO decisions frequently based on the received feedback from the target node enabling the source node to make HO decisions for other UEs. The feedback information for AI/ML function that performs HO decisions (0336, 0389). The feedback provided from the targe node to the source node comprises: dwelling time in a cell, measurement of QoS parameters experienced at target (instantaneous/mean), UE traffic pattern after HO, resource utilization used by UE, experienced latency, radio efficiency at target cell (bits per second per hertz) (0337-0344, 0390-397).
Xing teaches per slice performance of an UE (0004, 0007, 0014) to ensure service experience of post-network slice handover of a UE (0006, 0025). Xing teaches the network slice configuration feedback message includes the failure cause value, and the failure cause value indicates the specific cause of the network slice handover failure. For example, the failure cause value is that the target network slice is overloaded and/or the target network slice cannot meet the service requirements of all UEs in the original network slice because a quantity of UEs in the original network slice is excessively large (or a performance requirement is excessively high) (Table 4, 0200-0203) which enables the network to group UEs to be handed over and handing over UEs (for example 60%) to the target network slice (0204) and/or enables the server to add one or more network slices (0205-0206).
Byun teaches Mobility Robust Optimization (MRO). For example, upon detecting the connection failure, a handover related parameter for a real time service needs to be adjusted as fast and correct as possible considering the slice (0073). Base station 1 and base station 2 exchange information on a per slice basis (figure 7, 0077-0078). Figure 11 depicts MRO per slice (0017, 0098). In step S1120, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0101). In step S1160, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0106). After receiving the HO report message or the new message from BS2 by BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after successful handover from BS1 to BS2 (0108). Figure 12 depicts MRO per slice (0109). In step S1220, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0112). In step S1260, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0117). Upon receiving the handover report message or the new message from the BS2 by the BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after a successful handover from the BS1 to the BS2 (0119).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen to feedback information from the target node to the source node, after UE is handed over as taught by Ryden or Xing or Byun enabling the source node to update its handover decisions frequently.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 17. Vesterinen does not teach wherein the change in performance of the second base station comprises at least one of: a change of an amount of energy consumed by the second base station over a period of time; or a change of an energy efficiency of the second base station.
Ryden teaches AI/ML for traffic steering both comprising capacity improvements and Energy efficiency (0327-0329, 0354, 0373) wherein the AI/ML function performs HO decisions (0335).
Xing teaches per slice performance of an UE (0004, 0007, 0014) to ensure service experience of post-network slice handover of a UE (0006, 0025). Xing teaches the network slice configuration feedback message includes the failure cause value, and the failure cause value indicates the specific cause of the network slice handover failure. For example, the failure cause value is that the target network slice is overloaded and/or the target network slice cannot meet the service requirements of all UEs in the original network slice because a quantity of UEs in the original network slice is excessively large (or a performance requirement is excessively high) (Table 4, 0200-0203) which enables the network to group UEs to be handed over and handing over UEs (for example 60%) to the target network slice (0204) and/or enables the server to add one or more network slices (0205-0206).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen to feedback information from the target node to the source node, after UE is handed over as taught by Ryden enabling the source node to update its handover decisions frequently.
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 18. Vesterinen teaches wherein the change in performance of the second base station comprises a change of quality of service (QoS) performance based on at least one of: a delay; a throughput; or a packet error rate (0022 – target node sends QoS information to source BS wherein QoS may indicate minimum bit rate, maximum latency, packet drop).
Ryden teaches QoS based on throughput or poor radio coverage (0336, 0338, 0341, 0360).
Regarding amendment 2/12/2026. Vesterinen in view of Ryden do not teach per slice.
Xing teaches per slice performance of an UE (0004, 0007, 0014) to ensure service experience of post-network slice handover of a UE (0006, 0025). Xing teaches the network slice configuration feedback message includes the failure cause value, and the failure cause value indicates the specific cause of the network slice handover failure. For example, the failure cause value is that the target network slice is overloaded and/or the target network slice cannot meet the service requirements of all UEs in the original network slice because a quantity of UEs in the original network slice is excessively large (or a performance requirement is excessively high) (Table 4, 0200-0203) which enables the network to group UEs to be handed over and handing over UEs (for example 60%) to the target network slice (0204) and/or enables the server to add one or more network slices (0205-0206).
Byun teaches Mobility Robust Optimization (MRO). For example, upon detecting the connection failure, a handover related parameter for a real time service needs to be adjusted as fast and correct as possible considering the slice (0073). Base station 1 and base station 2 exchange information on a per slice basis (figure 7, 0077-0078). Figure 11 depicts MRO per slice (0017, 0098). In step S1120, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0101). In step S1160, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0106). After receiving the HO report message or the new message from BS2 by BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after successful handover from BS1 to BS2 (0108). Figure 12 depicts MRO per slice (0109). In step S1220, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0112). In step S1260, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0117). Upon receiving the handover report message or the new message from the BS2 by the BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after a successful handover from the BS1 to the BS2 (0119).
It would have been extremely obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen in view of Ryden to feedback a failure cause indicating network slice handover failure as taught by Xing or to feedback a handover failure report including slice ID as taught by Byun enabling the network update its handover decisions more accurately (as taught by Xing) or enabling the network to adjust real time related handover parameter(s) more quickly (Byun at 0073).
Regarding claims 6 and 19. Vesterinen does not teach wherein the change in performance of the second base station comprises a change of total quality of service (QoS) performance that is determined for a group of wireless devices associated with the second base station, wherein the group of wireless devices comprises at least one of: wireless devices served by the second base station; wireless devices served by a cell of the second base station; or wireless devices served by a part of coverage area of a cell of the second base station.
Ryden teaches the AI/ML function considers QoS for a group of UEs (0347 – number of active UEs at targe node, 0360 – On the basis of the current and predicted QoS target of each served UE, 0361 – QoS for a group of UEs, 0362 – such a prediction of the expected load per QoS class for particular time of day).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen to feedback information from the target node to the source node, after UE is handed over as taught by Ryden enabling the source node to update its handover decisions frequently.
Regarding claims 10 and 20. Vesterinen does not teach, wherein the feedback information further indicates at least one of: an amount of energy consumption by the second base station to serve the first wireless device; an amount of resource utilization by the second base station to serve the first wireless device; quality of service (QoS) performance of the first wireless device served by the second base station; or
a configuration of the first wireless device served by the second base station.
Ryden teaches the target provides reward (feedback) on the UE performance after handover (0335, 0388). If the UE experiences low throughput or poor radio coverage once handed over to the target cell … it is important to design a solution enabling a feedback mechanism after HO, where the UE and the target node provide measurements relative to the performance of the target cell serving the UE. This enables the source node to update HO decisions frequently based on the received feedback from the target node. The feedback information for AI/ML function that performs HO decisions (0336, 0389). The feedback provided from the targe node to the source node comprises: dwelling time in a cell, measurement of QoS parameters experienced at target (instantaneous/mean), UE traffic pattern after HO, resource utilization used by UE, experienced latency, radio efficiency at target cell (bits per second per hertz) (0337-0344, 0390-397).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen to feedback information from the target node to the source node, after UE is handed over as taught by Ryden enabling the source node to update its handover decisions frequently.
2. Claims 7, 9 and 14are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesterinen in view of Ryden and Xing or Byun further in view of Zhang (2023/0138190).
Regarding claims 7 and 14. Vesterinen in view of Ryden and Xing or Byun not teach wherein the
Zhang teaches NG-RAN data energy efficiency may be defined as data volume
divided by energy consumption of the considered network elements. The unit of this
key performance indicator (KPI) is bit/J, which is assumed to be applied to AI/ML based
on energy saving use case (0061, 0098, claims 1-2). Feedback from the target to the source node after handover (0062). In addition, Energy Saving Strategy Effectiveness/usefulness can be exchanged between NG-RAN nodes as a feedback from neighboring nodes to the source node. One purpose of AI/ML based energy saving is to allow the system dynamically to configure energy-saving strategy and to keep system performance as well as reducing energy consumption … the performance feedback for one NG-RAN node’s AI/ML decision from neighboring nodes can not only improve AI/ML model locally but also collectively improve the system performance (0099).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen in view of Ryden and Xing or Byun to feedback information from the target node to the source node regarding total energy consumption (e.g., bit/J) as taught by Zhang thereby improving AI/ML model locally as well as collectively improving system performance.
Regarding claim 9. Regarding amendment 2/12/2026. Vesterinen in view of Ryden do not explicitly teach feeding back information regarding per slice.
Xing teaches per slice performance of an UE (0004, 0007, 0014) to ensure service experience of post-network slice handover of a UE (0006, 0025). Xing teaches the network slice configuration feedback message includes the failure cause value, and the failure cause value indicates the specific cause of the network slice handover failure. For example, the failure cause value is that the target network slice is overloaded and/or the target network slice cannot meet the service requirements of all UEs in the original network slice because a quantity of UEs in the original network slice is excessively large (or a performance requirement is excessively high) (Table 4, 0200-0203) which enables the network to group UEs to be handed over and handing over UEs (for example 60%) to the target network slice (0204) and/or enables the server to add one or more network slices (0205-0206).
Byun teaches Mobility Robust Optimization (MRO). For example, upon detecting the connection failure, a handover related parameter for a real time service needs to be adjusted as fast and correct as possible considering the slice (0073). Base station 1 and base station 2 exchange information on a per slice basis (figure 7, 0077-0078). Figure 11 depicts MRO per slice (0017, 0098). In step S1120, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0101). In step S1160, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0106). After receiving the HO report message or the new message from BS2 by BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after successful handover from BS1 to BS2 (0108). Figure 12 depicts MRO per slice (0109). In step S1220, an RLF may occur after the handover is complete (0112). In step S1260, the BS2 may transmit to the BS1 the handover report message or the new message which includes a slice ID and mobility related information (0117). Upon receiving the handover report message or the new message from the BS2 by the BS1, the BS1 may detect that the RLF has occurred after a successful handover from the BS1 to the BS2 (0119).
It would have been extremely obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen in view of Ryden to feedback a failure cause indicating network slice handover failure as taught by Xing or to feedback a handover failure report including slice ID as taught by Byun enabling the network update its handover decisions more accurately (as taught by Xing) or enabling the network to adjust real time related handover parameter(s) more quickly (Byun at 0073).
Vesterinen in view of Ryden and Xing or Byun not teach wherein the change in performance of the second base station comprises at least one of: a change of total energy consumption by the second base station; a change of total resource utilization by the second base station; or a change of total quality of service (QoS) performance associated with the second base station.
Zhang teaches NG-RAN data energy efficiency may be defined as data volume
divided by energy consumption of the considered network elements. The unit of this
key performance indicator (KPI) is bit/J, which is assumed to be applied to AI/ML based
on energy saving use case (0061, 0098, claims 1-2). Feedback from the target to the source node after handover (0062). In addition, Energy Saving Strategy Effectiveness/usefulness can be exchanged between NG-RAN nodes as a feedback from neighboring nodes to the source node. One purpose of AI/ML based energy saving is to allow the system dynamically to configure energy-saving strategy and to keep system performance as well as reducing energy consumption … the performance feedback for one NG-RAN node’s AI/ML decision from neighboring nodes can not only improve AI/ML model locally but also collectively improve the system performance (0099).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vesterinen in view of Ryden and Xing or Byun to feedback information from the target node to the source node regarding total energy consumption (e.g., bit/J) as taught by Zhang thereby improving AI/ML model locally as well as collectively improving system performance.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---(2024/0314679) LI et al teaches feeding back handover failure message regarding per slice which enables the network to adjust resources (0101).
---(2024/0015610) Fang et al teaches after handover, the UE reports slice information report, successful handover report, failure information report enabling the network to optimize network performance (0053).
5. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARRY W TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/BARRY W TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights