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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 and 6/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202110738181.8, filed on 6/30/2021.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
Claim 12: “handover type determination module" and “handover module”
(“As shown in Fig. 4, the inter-base-station handover apparatus may include a handover type determination module 401 and a handover module 402”, Huang [0079]) and FIG. 5
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for “handover module” and “handover type determination module” is a base station
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paladugu et al. US 20210051554 (hereinafter “Paladugu”).
As to claim 1 and 12 (claim 1 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 12):
Paladugu discloses:
An inter-base-station handover method, comprising: determining a handover type according to acquired target base station information and source base station information, the source base station information being configuration information of a source base station providing a communication service for a terminal to be handed over, the target base station information being configuration information of a target base station; and handing over a service of the terminal to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station according to the handover type. (“When the source gNB and target gNB(s) are not connected over Xn, handover can be supported via N2 interface. In some cases, the gNBs connected via an N2 interface, may belong to different vendors, and/or separated over long distance. In these instances, the gNBs may be under different AMFs and/or connected to different UPFs. Existing N2 handover signaling may not have capabilities to indicate MBB handover support.”, Paladugu [0051]) (“As noted above, in CHO procedures defined for X2 based candidate cell preparations, the source gNB may prepare and/or select the one or more candidate target cells based on the measurement criteria alone. If some of the candidate target cells belong to a different AMF, there may be some benefit in optimizing the source gNB and UE CHO execution logic to prioritize the candidate target cells under the same AMF. In some cases, data forwarding over N2 may benefit from optimizations that enable data forwarding for MBB and/or CHO handover procedures.”, Paladugu [0052]) (“FIGS. 3, 4, and 5 are flow diagrams that illustrate example operations that may be performed by a source base station (source gNB), UE, and core network entity (e.g., AMF), respectively, to optimize/improve enhanced handover procedures, such as MBB and CHO.”, Paladugu [0053]) (“In some cases, the source gNB may determine whether the target cell belongs to a different AMF (e.g., based on Operations Administration and Maintenance (OAM) configuration). In some cases, the S-AMF may inform the source gNB about the target cell information.”, Paladugu [0067]) (“Operations 400 begin, at 402, by receiving information from a source base station for use in selecting a target base station as part of an enhanced handover procedure. At 404, the UE takes one or more actions, based on the information, to enhance the handover procedure involving an interface via a core network entity for communication between the source base station and the target base station.”, Paladugu [0057]) (“Even if the source gNB does not indicate that the target cell belongs to a different AMF, the UE can still determine an AMF ID of the source cell from 5G-Global Unique Temporary Identifier (GUTI). The UE may know a TAI list configured for the registration area. The UE may, in some examples, compare the target cell TAI included in the handover command with the TAI list to identify if the target cell belongs to the same AMF. The UE may use this information to prioritize cells under the same AMF. In other words, a UE may alter a conventional algorithm based on measurements and prioritize target cell belongs to the same AMF.”, Paladugu [0069])
As to claim 2:
Paladugu discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining a handover type according to acquired target base station information and source base station information comprises: acquiring context information and target base station information of the terminal to be handed over, the context information comprising source topological connection information representing information of an access and mobility management function, AMF, entity connected with the source base station corresponding to the terminal to be handed over, the target base station information comprising target topological connection information between the target base station and an AMF entity; in response to that the service of the terminal to be handed over is to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station, determining a matching result according to the target topological connection information and the source topological connection information; and determining the handover type according to the matching result. (“When the source gNB and target gNB(s) are not connected over Xn, handover can be supported via N2 interface. In some cases, the gNBs connected via an N2 interface, may belong to different vendors, and/or separated over long distance. In these instances, the gNBs may be under different AMFs and/or connected to different UPFs. Existing N2 handover signaling may not have capabilities to indicate MBB handover support.”, Paladugu [0051]) (“As noted above, in CHO procedures defined for X2 based candidate cell preparations, the source gNB may prepare and/or select the one or more candidate target cells based on the measurement criteria alone. If some of the candidate target cells belong to a different AMF, there may be some benefit in optimizing the source gNB and UE CHO execution logic to prioritize the candidate target cells under the same AMF. In some cases, data forwarding over N2 may benefit from optimizations that enable data forwarding for MBB and/or CHO handover procedures.”, Paladugu [0052]) (“FIGS. 3, 4, and 5 are flow diagrams that illustrate example operations that may be performed by a source base station (source gNB), UE, and core network entity (e.g., AMF), respectively, to optimize/improve enhanced handover procedures, such as MBB and CHO.”, Paladugu [0053]) (“In some cases, the source gNB may determine whether the target cell belongs to a different AMF (e.g., based on Operations Administration and Maintenance (OAM) configuration). In some cases, the S-AMF may inform the source gNB about the target cell information.”, Paladugu [0067]) (“Operations 400 begin, at 402, by receiving information from a source base station for use in selecting a target base station as part of an enhanced handover procedure. At 404, the UE takes one or more actions, based on the information, to enhance the handover procedure involving an interface via a core network entity for communication between the source base station and the target base station.”, Paladugu [0057]) (“Even if the source gNB does not indicate that the target cell belongs to a different AMF, the UE can still determine an AMF ID of the source cell from 5G-Global Unique Temporary Identifier (GUTI). The UE may know a TAI list configured for the registration area. The UE may, in some examples, compare the target cell TAI included in the handover command with the TAI list to identify if the target cell belongs to the same AMF. The UE may use this information to prioritize cells under the same AMF. In other words, a UE may alter a conventional algorithm based on measurements and prioritize target cell belongs to the same AMF.”, Paladugu [0069])
As to claim 3:
Paladugu discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the source topological connection information comprises an identifier of a global radio access node connected to the source base station and an identifier of a first AMF; the determining a matching result according to the target topological connection information and the source topological connection information comprises: searching for the target topological connection information according to the identifier of the global radio access node connected to the source base station, and determining whether the target topological connection information comprises the identifier of the first AMF; in response to that the target topological connection information comprises the identifier of the first AMF, determining the matching result is that the first AMF connected to the source base station is connected with the target base station; and in response to that the target topological connection information does not include the identifier of the first AMF, determining the matching result is that the first AMF connected to the source base station is not connected with the target base station. (“When the source gNB and target gNB(s) are not connected over Xn, handover can be supported via N2 interface. In some cases, the gNBs connected via an N2 interface, may belong to different vendors, and/or separated over long distance. In these instances, the gNBs may be under different AMFs and/or connected to different UPFs. Existing N2 handover signaling may not have capabilities to indicate MBB handover support.”, Paladugu [0051]) (“As noted above, in CHO procedures defined for X2 based candidate cell preparations, the source gNB may prepare and/or select the one or more candidate target cells based on the measurement criteria alone. If some of the candidate target cells belong to a different AMF, there may be some benefit in optimizing the source gNB and UE CHO execution logic to prioritize the candidate target cells under the same AMF. In some cases, data forwarding over N2 may benefit from optimizations that enable data forwarding for MBB and/or CHO handover procedures.”, Paladugu [0052]) (“FIGS. 3, 4, and 5 are flow diagrams that illustrate example operations that may be performed by a source base station (source gNB), UE, and core network entity (e.g., AMF), respectively, to optimize/improve enhanced handover procedures, such as MBB and CHO.”, Paladugu [0053]) (“In some cases, the source gNB may determine whether the target cell belongs to a different AMF (e.g., based on Operations Administration and Maintenance (OAM) configuration). In some cases, the S-AMF may inform the source gNB about the target cell information.”, Paladugu [0067]) (“Operations 400 begin, at 402, by receiving information from a source base station for use in selecting a target base station as part of an enhanced handover procedure. At 404, the UE takes one or more actions, based on the information, to enhance the handover procedure involving an interface via a core network entity for communication between the source base station and the target base station.”, Paladugu [0057]) (“Even if the source gNB does not indicate that the target cell belongs to a different AMF, the UE can still determine an AMF ID of the source cell from 5G-Global Unique Temporary Identifier (GUTI). The UE may know a TAI list configured for the registration area. The UE may, in some examples, compare the target cell TAI included in the handover command with the TAI list to identify if the target cell belongs to the same AMF. The UE may use this information to prioritize cells under the same AMF. In other words, a UE may alter a conventional algorithm based on measurements and prioritize target cell belongs to the same AMF.”, Paladugu [0069])
As to claim 4:
Paladugu discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the determining the handover type according to the matching result comprises: in response to that the matching result is that the first AMF connected to the source base station is connected to the target base station, determining the handover type is based on an Xn interface; and in response to that the matching result is that the first AMF connected to the source base station is not connected to the target base station, determining the handover type is based on an NG interface, wherein a handover based on the Xn interface represents that the AMF is not to be switched over during the handover between the source base station and the target base station, a handover based on the NG interface represents that the AMF is to be switched over during the handover between the source base station and the target base station. (“When the source gNB and target gNB(s) are not connected over Xn, handover can be supported via N2 interface. In some cases, the gNBs connected via an N2 interface, may belong to different vendors, and/or separated over long distance. In these instances, the gNBs may be under different AMFs and/or connected to different UPFs. Existing N2 handover signaling may not have capabilities to indicate MBB handover support.”, Paladugu [0051]) (“As noted above, in CHO procedures defined for X2 based candidate cell preparations, the source gNB may prepare and/or select the one or more candidate target cells based on the measurement criteria alone. If some of the candidate target cells belong to a different AMF, there may be some benefit in optimizing the source gNB and UE CHO execution logic to prioritize the candidate target cells under the same AMF. In some cases, data forwarding over N2 may benefit from optimizations that enable data forwarding for MBB and/or CHO handover procedures.”, Paladugu [0052]) (“FIGS. 3, 4, and 5 are flow diagrams that illustrate example operations that may be performed by a source base station (source gNB), UE, and core network entity (e.g., AMF), respectively, to optimize/improve enhanced handover procedures, such as MBB and CHO.”, Paladugu [0053]) (“In some cases, the source gNB may determine whether the target cell belongs to a different AMF (e.g., based on Operations Administration and Maintenance (OAM) configuration). In some cases, the S-AMF may inform the source gNB about the target cell information.”, Paladugu [0067]) (“Operations 400 begin, at 402, by receiving information from a source base station for use in selecting a target base station as part of an enhanced handover procedure. At 404, the UE takes one or more actions, based on the information, to enhance the handover procedure involving an interface via a core network entity for communication between the source base station and the target base station.”, Paladugu [0057]) (“Even if the source gNB does not indicate that the target cell belongs to a different AMF, the UE can still determine an AMF ID of the source cell from 5G-Global Unique Temporary Identifier (GUTI). The UE may know a TAI list configured for the registration area. The UE may, in some examples, compare the target cell TAI included in the handover command with the TAI list to identify if the target cell belongs to the same AMF. The UE may use this information to prioritize cells under the same AMF. In other words, a UE may alter a conventional algorithm based on measurements and prioritize target cell belongs to the same AMF.”, Paladugu [0069]) (“During CHO target cell selection, the UE could prioritize the target cell belonging to same AMF and/or those with X2 connection over those with an N2 connection and/or belonging to different AMF.”, Paladugu [0068])
As to claim 13:
Paladugu discloses:
A base station, comprising: an inter-base-station handover apparatus configured to implement the inter-base-station handover method according to claim 1. (FIG. 1 and FIG. 6 – 9, Paladugu)
As to claim 14:
Paladugu discloses:
An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory having at least one computer program stored thereon, the at least one computer program, executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to implement the inter-base-station handover method according to claim 1. (“The various operations of methods described above may be performed by any suitable means capable of performing the corresponding functions. The means may include various hardware and/or software component(s) and/or module(s), including, but not limited to a circuit, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or processor. Generally, where there are operations illustrated in figures, those operations may have corresponding counterpart means-plus-function components with similar numbering.”, Paladugu [0115])
As to claim 15:
Paladugu discloses:
A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program, executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the inter-base-station handover method according to claim 1. (“If implemented in software, the functions may be stored or transmitted over as one or more instructions or code on a computer readable medium.”, Paladugu [0118])
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. US 20200008109 (hereinafter “Li”)
As to claim 5:
Paladugu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: after handing over the service of the terminal to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station according to the handover type, in response to that AMF region information is changed, updating the target topological connection information and the source topological connection information.
However, Li further teaches updating topological information which includes:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: after handing over the service of the terminal to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station according to the handover type, in response to that AMF region information is changed, updating the target topological connection information and the source topological connection information. (“receiving, by a first Access and Mobility management Function AMF, handover request information sent from a first base station, wherein the handover request information is used to request a handover of a user equipment from the first base station to a second base station; sending, from the first AMF, a handover preparation request to the second base station requesting target resources for the user equipment under the condition that there is no need for the user equipment to carry out a cross-AMF handover, wherein the handover preparation request carries the handover request information and session information of the user equipment, and during the cross-AMF handover, an AMF of the user equipment changes from the first AMF to a second AMF; and sending, from the first AMF, the handover request information to the second AMF under the condition that there is a need for the user equipment to carry out the cross-AMF handover, and sending, from the second AMF, the handover preparation request to the second base station requesting the target resources for the user equipment.”, Li [0028]) (“Through the above embodiment, AMF can obtain the required session information, AMF is related to the location of UE, and each UE has only one AMF for serving it. As UE moves, it may move out of AMF service area. At this point, it may cause changes in AMF, and the changes in AMF may further result in changes in SMF. In these cases, the disclosure may also realize the reserve resources on a target side.”, Li [0153]) (“Step S212, triggering location update procedure under the condition that the base station cell is not in a TA list of UE (TA (Tracking Area) is a concept list newly established by LTE system and location management of UE.)”, Li [0024]) (“Step S512, initiating, by tAMF, a handover notification to SMF with the downlink tunnel identifier of N3 tunnel assigned for each session by the target base station 2, updating the downlink tunnel identifier of N3 tunnel interactively by SMF and UPF, and then returning a path handover response to AMF;”, Li [0113]) (“Step S618, updating the session, and updating the downlink tunnel identifier N3 tunnel and uplink tunnel identifier of N9 interactively by tSMF and UPF2;”, Li [0136]) (“Step S718, updating session, and updating the downlink tunnel identifier of N3 tunnel interactively by tSMF and UPF;”, Li [0149])
Paladugu and Li are analogous because they pertain to UE handover method.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include updating topological information as described in Li into Paladugu. By modifying the method to include updating topological information as taught by Li, the benefits of improved handover method (Paladugu [0069] and Li [0153]) are achieved.
As to claim 16:
Paladugu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 2, further comprising: after handing over the service of the terminal to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station according to the handover type, in response to that AMF region information is changed, updating the target topological connection information and the source topological connection information.
However, Li further teaches updating topological information which includes:
The method of claim 2, further comprising: after handing over the service of the terminal to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station according to the handover type, in response to that AMF region information is changed, updating the target topological connection information and the source topological connection information. (“receiving, by a first Access and Mobility management Function AMF, handover request information sent from a first base station, wherein the handover request information is used to request a handover of a user equipment from the first base station to a second base station; sending, from the first AMF, a handover preparation request to the second base station requesting target resources for the user equipment under the condition that there is no need for the user equipment to carry out a cross-AMF handover, wherein the handover preparation request carries the handover request information and session information of the user equipment, and during the cross-AMF handover, an AMF of the user equipment changes from the first AMF to a second AMF; and sending, from the first AMF, the handover request information to the second AMF under the condition that there is a need for the user equipment to carry out the cross-AMF handover, and sending, from the second AMF, the handover preparation request to the second base station requesting the target resources for the user equipment.”, Li [0028]) (“Through the above embodiment, AMF can obtain the required session information, AMF is related to the location of UE, and each UE has only one AMF for serving it. As UE moves, it may move out of AMF service area. At this point, it may cause changes in AMF, and the changes in AMF may further result in changes in SMF. In these cases, the disclosure may also realize the reserve resources on a target side.”, Li [0153])
Paladugu and Li are analogous because they pertain to UE handover method.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include updating topological information as described in Li into Paladugu. By modifying the method to include updating topological information as taught by Li, the benefits of improved handover method (Paladugu [0069] and Li [0153]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. US 20220086705 (hereinafter “Wang”)
As to claim 6:
Paladugu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the source base station information further comprises: information of a first carrier used by the source base station for providing the communication service for the terminal to be handed over; the target base station information further comprises: information of a second carrier used by the target base station for providing a communication service for the terminal to be handed over; the determining a handover type according to acquired target base station information and source base station information comprises: in response to that the service of the terminal to be handed over is to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station, determining the handover type according to the information of the first carrier and the information of the second carrier.
However, Wang further teaches determining handover type based on SNPN identifier which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein the source base station information further comprises: information of a first carrier used by the source base station for providing the communication service for the terminal to be handed over; the target base station information further comprises: information of a second carrier used by the target base station for providing a communication service for the terminal to be handed over; the determining a handover type according to acquired target base station information and source base station information comprises: in response to that the service of the terminal to be handed over is to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station, determining the handover type according to the information of the first carrier and the information of the second carrier. (“The CU of the source base station decides to switch the UE to the destination base station based on the UE measurement result. The message carries the identifier of the destination base station or the identifier of the destination cell. The message may also carry the SNPN identifier of the destination cell. The message may carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the source cell, and further carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the destination cell.”, Wang [0249])(“If there is an Xn interface between the source base station and the destination base station, the SNPN identifier of the cell on the destination base station is obtained from the Xn establishment process. If the destination cell belongs to the SNPN, but the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is different from that of the source cell, even if there is an Xn interface, the source base station does not initiate an Xn handover, but initiates an NG handover, so that the AMF identifies whether to allow the UE to switch to the destination cell/destination base station. If the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is the same as the SNPN identifier of the source cell, the source base station initiates the Xn handover process.”, Wang [0251])
Paladugu and Wang are analogous because they pertain to UE handover method.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining handover type based on SNPN identifier as described in Wang into Paladugu. By modifying the method to include determining handover type based on SNPN identifier as taught by Wang, the benefits of improved handover method (Paladugu [0069] and Wang [0251]) are achieved.
As to claim 7:
Paladugu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 6, wherein the information of the first carrier comprises: an identifier of the first carrier and an identifier of an operator to which the first carrier belongs, the information of the second carrier comprises: an identifier of the second carrier and an identifier of an operator to which the second carrier belongs; the determining the handover type according to the information of the first carrier and the information of the second carrier comprises: in response to that the identifier of the operator to which the first carrier belongs is the same as the identifier of the operator to which the second carrier belongs, comparing the identifier of the first carrier with the identifier of the second carrier to obtain a comparison result; and in response to that the comparison result is that the identifier of the first carrier and the identifier of the second carrier are different, determining the handover type is based on a NG interface.
However, Wang further teaches determining handover type based on SNPN identifier which includes:
The method of claim 6, wherein the information of the first carrier comprises: an identifier of the first carrier and an identifier of an operator to which the first carrier belongs, the information of the second carrier comprises: an identifier of the second carrier and an identifier of an operator to which the second carrier belongs; the determining the handover type according to the information of the first carrier and the information of the second carrier comprises: in response to that the identifier of the operator to which the first carrier belongs is the same as the identifier of the operator to which the second carrier belongs, comparing the identifier of the first carrier with the identifier of the second carrier to obtain a comparison result; and in response to that the comparison result is that the identifier of the first carrier and the identifier of the second carrier are different, determining the handover type is based on a NG interface. (“The CU of the source base station decides to switch the UE to the destination base station based on the UE measurement result. The message carries the identifier of the destination base station or the identifier of the destination cell. The message may also carry the SNPN identifier of the destination cell. The message may carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the source cell, and further carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the destination cell.”, Wang [0249])(“If there is an Xn interface between the source base station and the destination base station, the SNPN identifier of the cell on the destination base station is obtained from the Xn establishment process. If the destination cell belongs to the SNPN, but the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is different from that of the source cell, even if there is an Xn interface, the source base station does not initiate an Xn handover, but initiates an NG handover, so that the AMF identifies whether to allow the UE to switch to the destination cell/destination base station. If the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is the same as the SNPN identifier of the source cell, the source base station initiates the Xn handover process.”, Wang [0251])
Paladugu and Wang are analogous because they pertain to UE handover method.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining handover type based on SNPN identifier as described in Wang into Paladugu. By modifying the method to include determining handover type based on SNPN identifier as taught by Wang, the benefits of improved handover method (Paladugu [0069] and Wang [0251]) are achieved.
As to claim 8:
Paladugu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the source base station comprises: a physical base station or a logical base station, the target base station comprises: a physical base station or a logical base station; wherein the logical base station is a base station based on an identifier of an operator, or, a base station based on different service types of a same operator.
However, Wang further teaches determining handover type based on SNPN identifier which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein the source base station comprises: a physical base station or a logical base station, the target base station comprises: a physical base station or a logical base station; wherein the logical base station is a base station based on an identifier of an operator, or, a base station based on different service types of a same operator. (“The CU of the source base station decides to switch the UE to the destination base station based on the UE measurement result. The message carries the identifier of the destination base station or the identifier of the destination cell. The message may also carry the SNPN identifier of the destination cell. The message may carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the source cell, and further carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the destination cell.”, Wang [0249])(“If there is an Xn interface between the source base station and the destination base station, the SNPN identifier of the cell on the destination base station is obtained from the Xn establishment process. If the destination cell belongs to the SNPN, but the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is different from that of the source cell, even if there is an Xn interface, the source base station does not initiate an Xn handover, but initiates an NG handover, so that the AMF identifies whether to allow the UE to switch to the destination cell/destination base station. If the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is the same as the SNPN identifier of the source cell, the source base station initiates the Xn handover process.”, Wang [0251])
Paladugu and Wang are analogous because they pertain to UE handover method.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining handover type based on SNPN identifier as described in Wang into Paladugu. By modifying the method to include determining handover type based on SNPN identifier as taught by Wang, the benefits of improved handover method (Paladugu [0069] and Wang [0251]) are achieved.
As to claim 10:
Paladugu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: before determining the handover type according to the acquired target base station information and the acquired source base station information, acquiring communication information of the terminal to be handed over; and determining whether the service of the terminal to be handed over is to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station according to the communication information of the terminal to be handed over.
However, Wang further teaches determining handover type based on SNPN identifier which includes:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: before determining the handover type according to the acquired target base station information and the acquired source base station information, acquiring communication information of the terminal to be handed over; and determining whether the service of the terminal to be handed over is to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station according to the communication information of the terminal to be handed over. (“The CU of the source base station decides to switch the UE to the destination base station based on the UE measurement result. The message carries the identifier of the destination base station or the identifier of the destination cell. The message may also carry the SNPN identifier of the destination cell. The message may carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the source cell, and further carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the destination cell.”, Wang [0249])(“If there is an Xn interface between the source base station and the destination base station, the SNPN identifier of the cell on the destination base station is obtained from the Xn establishment process. If the destination cell belongs to the SNPN, but the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is different from that of the source cell, even if there is an Xn interface, the source base station does not initiate an Xn handover, but initiates an NG handover, so that the AMF identifies whether to allow the UE to switch to the destination cell/destination base station. If the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is the same as the SNPN identifier of the source cell, the source base station initiates the Xn handover process.”, Wang [0251]) (Examiner’s Note: “communication information” is vague)
Paladugu and Wang are analogous because they pertain to UE handover method.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining handover type based on SNPN identifier as described in Wang into Paladugu. By modifying the method to include determining handover type based on SNPN identifier as taught by Wang, the benefits of improved handover method (Paladugu [0069] and Wang [0251]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. US 20220086705 (hereinafter “Wang”) and Babaei US 20210235339 (hereinafter “Babaei”)
As to claim 9:
Paladugu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: before determining the handover type according to the acquired target base station information and the acquired source base station information, establishing a stream control transmission protocol link and a link based on an Xn interface between the source base station and the target base station.
However, Wang further teaches establishing Xn interface before determining handover type which includes:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: before determining the handover type according to the acquired target base station information and the acquired source base station information, establishing a (“The CU of the source base station decides to switch the UE to the destination base station based on the UE measurement result. The message carries the identifier of the destination base station or the identifier of the destination cell. The message may also carry the SNPN identifier of the destination cell. The message may carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the source cell, and further carry the CAG identifier and/or SNPN identifier of the destination cell.”, Wang [0249])(“If there is an Xn interface between the source base station and the destination base station, the SNPN identifier of the cell on the destination base station is obtained from the Xn establishment process. If the destination cell belongs to the SNPN, but the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is different from that of the source cell, even if there is an Xn interface, the source base station does not initiate an Xn handover, but initiates an NG handover, so that the AMF identifies whether to allow the UE to switch to the destination cell/destination base station. If the SNPN identifier of the destination cell is the same as the SNPN identifier of the source cell, the source base station initiates the Xn handover process.”, Wang [0251])
Paladugu and Wang are analogous because they pertain to UE handover method.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include establishing Xn interface before determining handover type as described in Wang into Paladugu. By modifying the method to include establishing Xn interface before determining handover type as taught by Wang, the benefits of improved handover method (Paladugu [0069] and Wang [0251]) are achieved.
The combination of Paladugu and Wang as described above does not explicitly teach:
establishing a stream control transmission protocol link and a link based on an Xn interface between the source base station and the target base station.
However, Babaei further teaches establishing SCTP link based on XN interface which includes:
establishing a stream control transmission protocol link and a link based on an Xn interface between the source base station and the target base station. (“In an example, the Xn control plane interface (Xn-C) may be defined between two NG-RAN nodes. An example control plane protocol stack of the Xn interface is shown in FIG. 16B. The transport network layer may be built on SCTP on top of IP. The application layer signalling protocol may be referred to as XnAP (Xn Application Protocol). The SCTP layer may provide the guaranteed delivery of application layer messages. In the transport IP layer point-to-point transmission may be used to deliver the signaling PDUs. The Xn-C interface may support Xn interface management; UE mobility management, including context transfer and RAN paging; and dual connectivity.”, Babaei [0143])
Paladugu, Wang, and Babaei are analogous because they pertain to UE handover method.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include establishing SCTP link based on XN interface as described in Babaei into Paladugu as modified by Wang. By modifying the method to include establishing SCTP link based on XN interface as taught by Babaei, the benefits of improved handover method (Paladugu [0069], Babaei [0145], and Wang [0251]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu in view of Wang, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Soldati et al. US 20250081101 (hereinafter “Soldati”)
As to claim 11:
The combination of Paladugu and Wang as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 10, wherein the communication information of the terminal to be handed over comprises: a first communication quality based on the source base station, or, the first communication quality based on the source base station and a second communication quality based on the target base station;
the determining whether the service of the terminal to be handed over is to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station according to the communication information of the terminal to be handed over comprises: in response to that the first communication quality is not within a preset quality threshold range or the second communication quality is better than the first communication quality, determining that the service of the terminal to be handed over is to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station.
However, Soldati further teaches determining handover based on communication quality between base stations which includes:
The method of claim 10, wherein the communication information of the terminal to be handed over comprises: a first communication quality based on the source base station, or, the first communication quality based on the source base station and a second communication quality based on the target base station;
the determining whether the service of the terminal to be handed over is to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station according to the communication information of the terminal to be handed over comprises: in response to that the first communication quality is not within a preset quality threshold range or the second communication quality is better than the first communication quality, determining that the service of the terminal to be handed over is to be handed over from the source base station to the target base station. (“The initial handover condition to be met for a positive handover decision is that the received signal strength (RSS) of the serving eNB is less than a given threshold value. In order to make the handover decision more robust, a signal strength threshold and a hysteresis operation can be enforced for the signal measured from the target eNB. In essence, if the candidate target eNB provides a higher RSS than that of the serving eNB during a period of time, a hysteresis operation is considered by the serving eNB for the target eNB. Once the conditions to trigger a handover procedure are met, a handover request is transmitted from the serving eNB to the target eNB. If the UE can be admitted by the target eNB, a handover request acknowledgment (Ack) message is transmitted back from the target eNB to the serving eNB. At this point, the serving eNB can issue a handover command to the UE to begin the handover, as shown in FIG. 3.”, Soldati [0036])
Paladugu, Wang, and Soldati are analogous because they pertain to UE handover method.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining handover based on communication quality between base stations as described in Soldati into Paladugu as modified by Wang. By modifying the method to include determining handover based on communication quality between base stations as taught by Soldati, the benefits of improved handover method (Paladugu [0069], Soldati [0036], and Wang [0251]) are achieved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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 at (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 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471