DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/604809 filed on 3/14/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) complies with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ying et al. (hereinafter Ying) EP 4016959 (attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Ying teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a first base station and based on a second time service capability information of a second base station, a handover of a wireless device to the second base station (¶0106; PNA 1 and PNA2 [first/second base stations respectively]. ¶0165 & Figs. 3a-ac; set up Xn between PNA1 and PNA2 where the Xn setup request includes time service capability information of the first and second base station. This is similar to instant specification in ¶0233 & Fig. 21. See also ¶0117 & Fig. 3 S102: The first network element obtains first information, where the first information is used to indicate service type information of local offloading supported by the target access network element, or the first information is used to indicate service type information corresponding to a service type to which a service that the target access network element supports in local offloading belongs. The service that the target access network element supports in local offloading may also be described as a local service supported by the target access network element. In this application, the local service supported by the target access network element may be locally routed by the target access network element, data of the service may be locally routed by the target access network element, or a session that carries the service or the data of the service may be locally routed by the target access network element.
This means that PNA1 determines to hand over the UE to PNA2. For example, only when determining that the target access network element supports the local offloading of the service corresponding to the first service type information, that the target access network element processes the first session may be understood as handing over the first session to the target access network element. In this way, that the target access network element processes the first session can not only reduce a transmission latency of service data, but also offload data of a core network element to reduce network pressure. See ¶0126);
and sending, by the first base station to the second base station, a handover request message (Fig. 3b, step 104a; Handover request sent from PNA1 to PNA2).
Regarding Claim 2, Ying further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first base station receives the second time service capability information from a network function (¶0106, ¶0117 & Fig. 3A; PNC [network function]) comprising at least one of: one or more base stations ¶0106; PNA 1 and PNA2 [first/second base stations respectively]. Handover request in Fig. 3b step 104a. Also see ¶0117, ¶0126 & Fig. 3 S102); an access and mobility management function (AMF); an operations administration and maintenance (OAM); or a Unified Data Management (UDM).
Regarding Claim 3, Ying further teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising sending, by the first base station to the network function, a first message comprising a first time service capability information of the first base station, wherein the second time service capability information is received responsive to the first message (Figs. 1a-1b & ¶0104-¶0108; responsive to a message, the capability information and handover take place. See also (¶0165 & Figs. 3a-ac; set up Xn between PNA1 and PNA2 where the Xn setup request includes time service capability information of the first and second base station).
Regarding Claim 4, Ying further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the first base station from a wireless device, a measurement report associated with the second base station, where the determining the handover is further based on the measurement report (¶0165. See also Fig. 3a step 100a, this limitation is similar to the configuration information of step 100a. For example, referring to step 100a in FIG. 3A to FIG. 3C, the information 1 about the PNA 1 may be configured by a PNC for the PNA 1 by using a PNA configuration message. Alternatively, the information 1 about the PNA 1 may be predefined. Step 101b: In the process of setting up the Xn interface connection between the PNA 1 and the PNA 2, the PNA 2 sends an Xn setup response (Xn setup response) message to the PNA 1, where the message includes information 2. A meaning of the information 2 is the same as a meaning of the foregoing first information, and the information 2 is used to indicate service type information of local offloading supported by the PNA 2. For content included in the information 2, refer to the content included in the foregoing first information. In FIG. 3A to FIG. 3C, an example in which the information 2 includes the local support indications, the NSSAIs, the DNNs, and the App-IDs is used for illustration. Optionally, referring to step 100b in FIG. 3A to FIG. 3C, the information 2 about the PNA 2 may be configured by the PNC for the PNA 2 by using a PNA configuration message. Alternatively, the information 2 about the PNA 2 may be predefined).
Regarding Claim 5, Ying further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second time service capability information indicates whether the second base station provides the time service (¶0165 & Figs. 3a-ac; set up Xn between PNA1 and PNA2 where the Xn setup request includes time service capability information of the first and second base station. This is similar to instant specification in ¶0233 & Fig. 21).
Claims 8-12 and 15-19 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying in view of Sha et al. (hereinafter Sha) EP 3952467 (attached).
Regarding Claim 6, Ying teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the second time service capability information indicates a traceability to coordinated universal time (UTC) capability, and wherein the traceability to UTC capability indicates at least one of: that a received UTC timestamp is traceable from a receiver of a UTC time back to a source of the UTC time; or whether the second base station implements traceability to UTC.
Sha teaches wherein the second time service capability information indicates a traceability to coordinated universal time (UTC) capability, and wherein the traceability to UTC capability indicates at least one of: that a received UTC timestamp is traceable from a receiver of a UTC time back to a source of the UTC time; or whether the second base station implements traceability to UTC (¶0033, ¶0077 & ¶0089 & Figs. 2, 7 & 9; Sha discloses a handshake procedure between BS and UE as in Fig. 7 which includes a “clock accuracy requirement” in the request. This implies that BS provides UTC traceability. For example, step S201 of ¶0040 and ¶0043 and step S901 of Fig. 9, the message carries clock information and clock accuracy that includes min granularity of clock synchronization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Sha into the system of Ying in order to ensure reliable, secure, and legally compliant operations across critical infrastructure. Key benefits include enhanced cybersecurity forensics, precise high-frequency trading timestamps, accurate, synchronized data logging, and stable network performance (common knowledge).
Regarding Claim 7, Ying in view of Sha teaches the method of claim 6, Sha further teaches wherein implementing the traceability to UTC comprises at least one of: identifying and/or documenting a source of a UTC time (same citation as claim 6. Also see Figs. 10-11, 15 & 17-19. For example, Fig. 17 Each piece of TSN clock information includes at least one of the number of the TSN clock information, the name of the TSN clock information, an indication of a type of a data packet carrying clock transfer, and a start timestamp of transmission); identifying and/or documenting a distribution chain of a UTC time from a source of the UTC time to a receiver of the UTC time; monitoring and/or documenting two or more sources of UTC time; calibrating and/or documenting UTC time; or documenting the implementing of the Traceability to UTC.
Claims 13-14 and 20 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455