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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgment is made for the applicant’s response and amendment filed on 02/17/2026.
Remarks
The claims are presented as follows:
Claims 1-2, 10-13, 16, 21-23 and 27 are amended.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment submitted by the applicant does not overcome the rejection made by the examiner in the last office action. The applicant’s argument has been considered carefully and does not provide the evidence for lack of motivation.
Applicant recites that the references do not disclose, teach or suggest the following argument:
“receive, from a source network entity, a handover request to the target network entity for one or more user equipment (UEs), wherein the handover request indicates a link failure with the source network entity” and “communicate with the one UE based on a UE context obtained prior to the re-establishment request”.
XU teaches, as shown in FIG.10, a method for exchanging information of small cell clusters between two base stations in a process of handing over a UE from a source base station to a target base station through X2 handover. In step 1001, the source base station transmits a handover request message to the target base station. The message includes the information of a small cell cluster of the source base station ([0108-114] FIG.10) base station 2 (source base station) transmits a radio link failure indication message to base station 1 (target base station), the message includes a PCI of the cell where the failure occurs, a C-RNTI of the UE in the cell where the failure occurs, a short-MAC-I received from UE in RRC connection re-establishment request message and an ECGI of a re-establishment cell. The message can also include the ECGI of the cell where the failure occurs. The message can also include an indicator whether base station 2 requests UE context. In the condition that base station 2 has not the UE context, the message includes an indicator of requesting the UE context ([0147-178] FIG.16) When base station 2 transmits the radio link failure indicator to base station 1 in the S1 interface via an MME, the radio link failure indicator includes the TAI and the ECGI of the cell where the failure occurs received from the UE in step 1201. TAI is used for routing among core networks and finding the MIME with which base station 1 connects ([0185-190] FIG.16).
Therefore, XU teaches a source base station transmitting a handover request to a target base station for one or more UEs, wherein the handover request indicates a link failure with the source base station and handing off UEs bases on a UE context obtained prior to the re-establishment request as shown in FIGS. 10-12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al. Publication No. (US 20190028936 A1) in view of Jeong et al. Publication No. (US 20240031844 A1).
Regarding claim 1, XU teaches an apparatus of wireless communication at a target network entity (base station 1 (eNB1) is a target base station FIG.12), comprising:
receive, from a source network entity (source base station FIG.10), a handover request to the target network entity (1001 handover request FIG.10) for one or more user equipment (UEs) (eNB1 transmits a handover request message to eNB2. The message can include “base station UE X2 AP ID” assigned for the UE by eNB2. An identifier of a target cell in the handover request message is the ECGI of the re-establishment cell received from base station 2 [0140-141] FIG.13), wherein the handover request indicates a link failure with the source network entity (base station 2 (eNB2) is a source base station FIG.12) as a cause for the handover request (base station 2 transmits a radio link failure indication message to base station 1. The message includes a PCI of the cell where the failure occurs, a C-RNTI of the UE in the cell where the failure occurs, a short-MAC-I received from UE in RRC connection re-establishment request message and an ECGI of a re-establishment cell. [0174-178] FIG.16);
receive, from one UE of the one or more UEs, a re-establishment request (when a failure occurs for a UE in eNB1, the UE performs cell reselection, e.g., selecting cell 2 of eNB2, and transmits a RRC re-establishment request message to eNB2 [0128-130] FIG.12); and
communicate with the one UE based on a UE context obtained prior to the re-establishment request (Base station 2 transmits a UE information request message to base station 1 to request UE context information, and obtains UE context from base station 1, The message includes CRNTI and can also include a short Media Access Control (MAC) identifier (short-MACI) of a re-establishment cell [0132-135] FIG.13).
XU does not explicitly teach the target network entity comprising one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the one or more memories, the one or more processors.
Jeong teaches the target network entity comprising one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the one or more memories, the one or more processors (Jeong: the gNB 102 includes multiple antennas 205a-205n, multiple transceivers 210a-210n, a controller/processor 225, a memory 230, and a backhaul or network interface 235 [0042-49] FIG.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified XU by the teaching of Jeong to have a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions to execute the method in order to control the overall operation of the UE by controlling the reception of DL channel signals and the transmission of UL channel signals (Jeong: [0055] FIG.1).
Regarding claim 2, XU teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the one or more processors, wherein, to receive the handover request, the one or more processors is configured to receive the handover request via the transceiver, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the target network entity to: prepare, based on information in the handover request, the UE context for each UE of the one or more UEs prior reception the re-establishment request from any of the one or more UEs (the handover request message includes security context of the UE in the cell where the failure occurs, eNB2 computes the short-MACI according to cell identifier PCI of the re-establishment cell and the security context in the UE context received from eNB1. If the short-MACI computed and the short-MACI received from the UE are same, the UE passes the security check. Otherwise, the UE does not pass the security check. eNB2 transmits RRC Re-establishment reject to UE in (step 1203) [0180-184] FIG.12).
Regarding claim 3, the modified XU teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the source network entity is associated with a non-terrestrial network (NTN), and the link failure is a feeder link failure (Jeong: a feeder link or radio link between a sat-gateway and the satellite (or UAS platform) is provided [0074-75] 104-FIG.1)
Regarding claim 4, the modified XU teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the feeder link failure is included in an information element of the handover request (Jeong: the wireless network includes a gNB 101 (e.g., base station, BS), a gNB 102, and a gNB 103, the UE continues the detection of radio link failure at the source cell until the successful completion of the random access procedure to the target cell [0089-90] FIG.14A).
Regarding claim 5, the modified XU teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the source network entity is associated with a terrestrial network (TN) (Jeong: the wireless network includes a gNB 101 (e.g., base station, BS), a gNB 102, and a gNB 103 [0034-36] 101-FIG.1).
Regarding claim 6, XU teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the handover request is a combined handover request and includes re-establishment information for each UE of the one or more UEs (The identifier of the UE in the cell where the failure occurs for the UE can be the CRNTI. The identifier of the UE in the cell where the failure occurs for the UE can be an eNB X2 AP ID of the UE in the source base station alternatively. The message can also include a short Media Access Control (MAC) identifier (short-MACI) [0132-135] FIG.13).
Regarding claim 7, XU teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the re-establishment information includes a cell radio network temporary identifier (CRNTI) and a shortened message authentication code - integrity (short-MAC-I) for each UE of the one or more UEs (The identifier of the UE in the cell where the failure occurs for the UE can be the CRNTI. The message can also include a short Media Access Control (MAC) identifier (short-MACI) [0132-135] FIG.13).
Regarding claim 8, XU teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the CRNTI and the short-MAC-I for each UE of the one or more UEs are a last CRNTI and a last short-MAC-I for each UE before the link failure (The identifier of the UE in the cell where the failure occurs for the UE can be the CRNTI, the message can also include a short Media Access Control (MAC) identifier (short-MACI) [0132-135] FIG.13).
Regarding claim 9, XU teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the handover request is for multiple UEs of the one or more UEs (base station 1 determines the base stations included in the small cell cluster according to measurement reports of several UEs in the current cell [0060] FIG.2).
Regarding claim 10, the modified XU teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the target network entity to, prior to being configured to communicate with the one UE: admit, based on the UE context, the one UE; and transmit, for the one UE, a re-establishment response (Jeong: upon reception of the PATH SWITCH REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGE message from the AMF, the target gNB sends the UE CONTEXT RELEASE to inform the source gNB about the success of the handover. The source gNB can then release radio and C-plane related resources associated to the UE context. Any ongoing data forwarding may continue [0145-147] FIG.1414B).
Regarding claim 11, the modified XU teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the target network entity to, after being configured to prepare the UE context for each UE of the one or more UEs: transmit, for the source network entity, a handover request acknowledgement that confirms a reception of the handover request (Jeong: the target gNB prepares the handover with L1/L2 and sends the HANDOVER REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGE to the source gNB, which includes a transparent container to be sent to the UE as an RRC message to perform the handover [0129-132] FIG.14A).
Regarding claims 12-22, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-11, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “source network entity (eNB2)” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claims 23-26, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-11, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “method at the target network entity” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claims 27-30, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-11, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “method at the source network entity” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472