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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Jain et al. for the "UPLINK AND DOWNLINK DATA PATH ENHANCEMENTS FOR CU-UP CHANGE" filed 10/17/2023 has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention.
(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.
5. Claims 1, 5-9, 14, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US#10,708,968).
Regarding claim 1, Kim (US#10,708,968) discloses a method for controlling mobility of a user equipment (UE) according to change of a distributed unit (DU), according to the essential features of the claims. Kim discloses a method comprising: initiating, by a system comprising a processor, a communication path update with regard to a device associated with a distributed unit (Fig. 9; Col. 1; lines 59-67 & Col. 14, lines 11-17: controlling mobility of a user equipment (UE) according to change of a distributed unit (DU). The CU-CP 940 performs a data transmission path update with AMF/UPF); and prior to a bearer context modification request being communicated from a central unit-control plane node to a source central unit-user plane node (Figs. 5, 9; Col. 2, lines 5-10 & Col. 9, lines 58-65 & Col. 13, lines 47-59: Step S520 - a UE context setup request message to a target DU to create a UE context and set a bearer up when control of mobility of the UE is determined), effectuating, by the system, the communi cation path update to transition from a first data communication path, associated with the source central unit-user plane node, the distributed unit, and a user plane function node, to a second data communication path, associated with a target central unit-user plane node, the distributed unit, and the user plane function node (Fig. 10; Col. 15, lines 39-46: The CU-CP 1040 sends a PATH SWITCH COMMAND or a BEARER MODIFICATION REQUEST message to the CU-UP 1050 through the E1 interface (S1055)), to facilitate communication of data associated with the device between the distributed unit and the user plane function node (Figs. 4, 9; Col. 9, lines 19-31 & Col. 13; line 43 to Col. 14, line 17: changing CU-UP in which DUs are connected to different CU-UPs - the source CU-UP 920 forwards data received from a core network to the target CU-UP 930, and the CU-CP 940 performs a data transmission path update with a core network entity (e.g., AMF/UPF). When the update of data transmission path is completed, the core network entity sends DL data for the UE to the CU-UP 930 to complete establishment of a new data transmission path).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses method of claim 1 as set forth above, Kim further teaches wherein in response to determining that the source central unit-user plane node is operating under a defined load condition, communicating a bearer context setup request to the target central unit-user plane node, to facilitate the initiating of the communication path update and the transition from the first data communication path associated with the source central unit-user plane node to the second data communication path associated with the target central unit-user plane node (Fig. 9; Col. 13, line 43 to Col. 14, line 17: the CU-CP 940 sends a bearer context modification request message to a source CU-UP 920 (S925). The source CU-UP 920 performs a bearer context modification procedure with the CU-CP 940. When operation S935 is completed, the CU-CP 940 sends a bearer context modification request message to the target CU-UP 930 (S940) and receives a response message (S945). Then, the source CU-UP 920 forwards data received from a core network to the target CU-UP 930, and the CU-CP 940 performs a data transmission path update with a core network entity (e.g., AMF/UPF)).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses method of claim 1 as set forth above, Kim further teaches wherein prior to the bearer context modification request being communicated from the central unit-control plane node to the source central unit-user plane node, and in response to an interface and device context modification request relating to the device that is received from the central unit-control plane node, configuring, by the system, the distributed unit to communicate uplink data packets to the target central unit-user plane node, wherein the data comprises the uplink data packets (Fig. 11; Col. 17, lines 38-52: The CU-CP 1140 sends a BEARER ADDITION REQUEST or PATH SWITCH COMMAND message to the target CU-UP 1160 over the E1 interface (S1155). After completion of the bearer addition or path switching between the target CU-UP 1160 and the target DU 1130, the target CU-UP 1160 sends a BEARER ADDITION RESPONSE or PATH SWITCH RESPONSE message to the CU-UP 1140 over the E1 interface (S1160)).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses method of claim 1 as set forth above, Kim further teaches wherein the effectuating of the communication path update to transition from the first data communication path associated with the source central unit-user plane node to the second data communication path associated with the target central unit-user plane node, prior to the bearer context modification request being communicated from the central unit-control plane node to the source central unit-user plane node, mitigates or eliminates loss of one or more data packets in connection with the transition from the first data communication path to the second data communication path ( Fig. 12; Col. 18, lines 42-51: At S1250 the CU and DU perform connection establishment. The CU-CP sends a PATH ADDITION COMMAND or BEARER ADDITION REQUEST message to the target CU-UP over the E1 interface. After completion of the path addition or bearer addition between the target CU-UP and the target DU, the target CU-UP sends a PATH ADDITION RESPONSE or BEARER ADDITION RESPONSE message to the CU-CP over the E1 interface).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses method of claim 1 as set forth above, Kim further teaches wherein with regard to the device, initiating, by the system, transitioning from a first downlink data communication path, associated with the source central unit-user plane node, the distributed unit, and the user plane function node, to a second downlink data communication path, associated with the target central unit-user plane node, the distributed unit, and the user plane function node, to facilitate communication of downlink data associated with the device between the user plane function node and the distributed unit (Fig. 9; Col. 13, line 43 to Col. 14, line 17: the CU-CP 940 sends a bearer context modification request message to a source CU-UP 920 (S925). The source CU-UP 920 performs a bearer context modification procedure with the CU-CP 940. When operation S935 is completed, the CU-CP 940 sends a bearer context modification request message to the target CU-UP 930 (S940) and receives a response message (S945). Then, the source CU-UP 920 forwards data received from a core network to the target CU-UP 930, and the CU-CP 940 performs a data transmission path update with a core network entity (e.g., AMF/UPF)).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses method of claim 1 as set forth above, Kim further teaches wherein communicating, by the system, a second bearer context modification request, associated with a downlink connection associated with the device, to the source central unit-user plane node (Fig. 12; Col. 18, lines 44-51: The CU-CP sends a PATH ADDITION COMMAND or BEARER ADDITION REQUEST message to the target CU-UP over the E1 interface. After completion of the path addition or bearer addition between the target CU-UP and the target DU, the target CU-UP sends a PATH ADDITION RESPONSE or BEARER ADDITION RESPONSE message to the CU-CP over the E1 interface).
Regarding claims 14, 17, they are system claims corresponding to the method claims 5-9 examined above. Therefore, claims 14, 17 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 5-9.
Regarding claim 19, 20, these claims differ from claims of Kim (US#10,708,968) in that the claims recited a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 5-9 examined above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Kim for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claims with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement for controlling mobility of a user equipment (UE) according to change of a distributed unit (DU), and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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(a) 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 2-3, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US#10,708,968) in view of Mihara et al. (US#2025/0212286).
Regarding claim 2, the references disclose a system and method for the communication path update to a UE in wireless communication systems, according to the essential features of the claims. Kim (US#10,708,968) discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth in the paragraph 5 above. However, Kim reference does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving an UL PDCP count value from CU-CP node. In the same field of endeavor, Mihara et al. (US#2025/0212286) teaches in Fig. 17 a sequence diagram illustrated an example of signaling during the preparation phase of an intra-CU inter-DU handover of the UE 4, in which at step 1705, the gNB-CU-CP 21 sends a BEARER CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST message to the gNB-CU-UP 22 to modify or update the bearer context for the UE 4. The BEARER CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST message indicates that the PDCP count values of one or more AM DRBs for the UE 4 need to be reset. This BEARER CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST message may contain the same or similar information as that contained in the control message of the first example embodiment (e.g., step 201 in Fig. 2) or the BEARER CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST message (para [0105]-[0108]: UL PDCP count value from CU-CP node).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently communication path update to a UE in wireless communication systems, and would have applied Mihara’s interface between a CU-CP plane and CU-UP plane utilizing PDCP count values into Kim’s techniques for controlling mobility of user equipment (UE) in the next-generation radio access technology. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Mihara’s CU-CP apparatus, CU-UP apparatus and methods therefor into Kim’s method of controlling mobility of UE and apparatus therefor with the motivation being to provide a method and system for CU-UP to modify the UEs bearer data endpoints and inform CU-CP for communication path change.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Mihara teaches the method of clam 2, Mihara further teaches wherein subsequent to the target central unit-user plane node receiving the uplink packet-data-convergence-protocol count value from the central unit-control plane node, the uplink data packets buffered at the target central unit-user plane node are enabled to be communicated from the target central unit-user plane node to the user plane function node (Fig. 1; para [0050]-[0053]: facilitating the gNB-CU-CP 21 and the gNB-CU-UP 22 to reset a PDCP count value for an Acknowledged Mode (AM) Data Radio Bearer (DRB) by adding a connected DU according to movement of a UE on the basis of an interface between an internal CU and a DU device and a CU-internal interface between the CU-CP and the CU-UP).
Regarding claim 15, it is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 2 examined above. Therefore, claim 15 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4, 10, 11, 16, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12, 13 depend on the objected claim above.
7. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the bearer context modification request is associated with an uplink connection associated with the device, and wherein in response to the bearer context modification request being communicated to the source central unit-user plane node, receiving, by the system, the uplink packet-data- convergence protocol count value from the source central unit-user plane node; and communicating, by the system, the uplink packet-data-convergence-protocol count value to the target central unit-user plane node; wherein the source central unit-user plane node receives downlink data packets from the user plane function node until the transition from the first downlink data communication path associated with the source central unit-user plane node to the second downlink data communica tion path associated with the target central unit-user plane node is performed, wherein an end marker is received by the source central unit-user plane node from the user plane function node,
wherein the downlink data packets received by the source central unit-user plane node are forwarded by the source central unit-user plane node to the distributed unit, and wherein the end marker is received by the distributed unit from the source central unit-user plane node after the downlink data packets are forwarded by the source central unit-user plane node to the distributed unit; subsequent to the source central unit-user plane node receiving an end marker from the user plane function node, and in response to the second bearer context modification request, receiving, by the system, a bearer context modification response message, comprising a downlink packet-data-convergence-protocol count value, from the source central unit-user plane node; and communicating, by the system, a third bearer context modification request, comprising the downlink packet-data-convergence-protocol count value, to the target central unit-user plane node, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Chandrashekar (US#12,507,129) is cited to show layer1/layer2 triggered mobility for intra-base station centralized unit user plane relocation.
The Godin et al. (US#2023/0413371) shows selection of transmission method for small data transmission.
The Singhai et al. (US#12,501,281) shows openRAN intelligent dynamic CU-UP scaling solution.
The Xu et al. (US#11,596,012) apparatus and method for selecting centralized unit-user plane in wireless communication system.
The Li et al. (US#11,877,327) shows method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving connection information in wireless communication system.
The Li et al. (US#12,490,316) method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving connection information in wireless communication system.
The Park et al. (US#11,895,726) shows completion indication of small data transmission.
The Sirotkin et al. (US#11,190,989) shows mobility management for inter-GNB handover in NR systems.
The Teyeb et al. (US#2023/0328604) shows handling of buffered traffic during inter CU migration of an ancestor IAB node.
The Teyeb et al. (US#2022/0201777) shows enhanced handover of nodes in IAB networks – control plane (CP) handling.
The AKL et al. (US#2024/0284283) RRC messaging and layer1/2 triggered mobility.
9. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
11. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
01/11/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477