DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed on 7/27/2026, claims 1, 12 and 19 are amended, claims 1- 20 are pending for examinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed in the remarks on 7/27/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 4, 6- 7, 11- 12 and 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243206 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 001) in view of Samsung et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243668 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 003).
Regarding claim 1, Huawei states a first network entity, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first network entity to (see section 2.7 source gNB-CU as a first network entity; see first three lines of section 2.7):
communicate, with a third network entity, a first message indicating an identifier associated with a lower-layer triggered mobility (LTM) procedure for a user equipment (UE), the identifier for indicating that the UE is associated with the LTM procedure configured between the first network entity and a second network entity (in context with section 2.6 lines 1- 5 (to support subsequent inter-CU LTM, some LTM configurations, e.g., early sync configuration, configuration ID, and data forwarding addresses, etc may need to sync up among candidate gNBs) pls refer to section 2.7 …During LTM, the LTM Cell Switch Notification from the source gNB-CU to the target gNB-CU can be successfully transmitted for the first time cell switch, because the source gNB-CU and the target gNB-CU already have the NG-RAN node UE XnAP ID of each other. …. One possible solution is that each candidate gNB allocates UE XnAP ID( i.e. an identifier here) and send to other candidate gNBs (i.e. third network entity) in the preparation step (i.e. UE XnAP ID information generated by candidate gNB (i.e. second network entity) and communicate (i.e. first message) to other candidate gNB (i.e. third network entity (i.e. see section 2.3 lines 3- 5.. a new class 2 XnAP procedure, namely LTM Cell Switch Notification should be introduced from the source gNB-CU to the candidate gNB-CU…)).); and
transmit, to the UE, a second message indicating to perform a cell switch operation from communications with the first network entity to the second network entity or the third network entity in accordance with the LTM procedure (see Fig. 1 #4 “LTM HO CMD”; further see step 5 about handover success with candidate gNB (i.e. second or third network entity here gNB2/3 are candidate gNBs ).
But Huawei is silent about limitations regarding communicate between the first network entity and a third network entity.
However Samsung states on page 3, #9 about .. "The source gNB-CU may send a UE associated XnAP message (FFS whether to reuse existing message, i.e., HANDOVER REQUEST with new code-point or to define a new message, e.g., LTM/HANDOVER MODIFICATION REQUEST) to the candidate gNB(s) containing the information for subsequent LTM, which may contain SSB/CSI resource configuration allocated for all the accepted candidate cells, LTM Reference Configuration(if available), LTM configuration ID mapping list, Early Sync Information..., Data Forwarding TNLs assigned by other involved gNB-CU(s) and LTM Cells To Be Released List." (i.e. here "The source gNB-CU" = first entity — sender; "the candidate gNB(s)" (plural) = third entity — one of possibly several candidate recipients, distinct from whichever candidate is designated "second"; "sends a UE associated XnAP message" = the first message; "LTM configuration ID mapping list" = the identifier associated with the LTM procedure); further see page 6 .proposal 2. "Introduce a Class-1 UE associated XnAP message to transfer LTM configuration information of accepted candidate cells to other each candidate gNB for subsequent LTM with below related LTM information included...". It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Samsung with the teachings of Huawei to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein communicating between the first network entity and a third network entity; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Regarding claim 2, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 1, wherein the identifier comprises a UE identifier allocated by the second network entity; Huawei already discussed above in context with section 2.6 lines 1- 5 (to support subsequent inter-CU LTM, some LTM configurations, e.g., early sync configuration, configuration ID, and data forwarding addresses, etc may need to sync up among candidate gNBs) pls refer to section 2.7 …During LTM, the LTM Cell Switch Notification from the source gNB-CU to the target gNB-CU can be successfully transmitted for the first time cell switch, because the source gNB-CU and the target gNB-CU already have the NG-RAN node UE XnAP ID of each other. …. One possible solution is that each candidate gNB allocates UE XnAP ID( i.e. an identifier here) and send to other candidate gNBs (i.e. third network entity) in the preparation step (i.e. UE XnAP ID information generated by candidate gNB (i.e. second network entity) and communicate (i.e. first message) to other candidate gNB (i.e. third network entity.
Regarding claim 3, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 2, wherein the UE identifier comprises a backhaul application protocol identifier; Huawei see section 2.7 UE XnAP ID.
Regarding claim 4, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 1, wherein the identifier comprises a UE identifier allocated by the first network entity, and wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first network entity to: communicate, to the second network entity and the third network entity, the UE identifier allocated by the first network entity; Huawei already described above in context with section 2.6 lines 1- 5 (to support subsequent inter-CU LTM, some LTM configurations, e.g., early sync configuration, configuration ID, and data forwarding addresses, etc may need to sync up among candidate gNBs) pls refer to section 2.7 …During LTM, the LTM Cell Switch Notification from the source gNB-CU to the target gNB-CU can be successfully transmitted for the first time cell switch, because the source gNB-CU and the target gNB-CU already have the NG-RAN node UE XnAP ID of each other. …. One possible solution is that each candidate gNB allocates UE XnAP ID( i.e. an identifier here) and send to other candidate gNBs (i.e. third network entity) in the preparation step (i.e. UE XnAP ID information generated by candidate gNB (i.e. second network entity) and communicate (i.e. first message) to other candidate gNB (i.e. third network entity)..
Regarding claim 6, Huawei states as per claim 1, but fails to state about, wherein the identifier comprises an LTM session identifier, the LTM session identifier indicating a serving network entity during an LTM preparation procedure of the LTM procedure; however Huawei teaches I section 2 see page 3 9. The source gNB-CU may send a UE associated XnAP message (FFS whether to reuse existing message, i.e., HANDOVER REQUEST with new code-point or to define a new message, e.g., LTM/HANDOVER MODIFICATION REQUEST) to the candidate gNB(s) containing the information for subsequent LTM, which may contain SSB/CSI resource configuration allocated for all the accepted candidate cells, LTM Reference Configuration(if available), LTM configuration ID mapping list, Early Sync Information which contains DL/UL early sync info allocated by each accepted candidate cell, Data Forwarding TNLs assigned by other involved gNB-CU(s) and LTM Cells To Be Released List. FFS on other detail information.
Regarding claim 7, Huawei states as per claim 1, but fails to state about, wherein the identifier comprises an LTM identifier coordinated between the first network entity as a serving network entity during an LTM preparation procedure of the LTM procedure and the second network entity, the third network entity, or any combination thereof, as target network entities; however Huawei teaches I section 2 see page 3 9. The source gNB-CU may send a UE associated XnAP message (FFS whether to reuse existing message, i.e., HANDOVER REQUEST with new code-point or to define a new message, e.g., LTM/HANDOVER MODIFICATION REQUEST) to the candidate gNB(s) containing the information for subsequent LTM, which may contain SSB/CSI resource configuration allocated for all the accepted candidate cells, LTM Reference Configuration(if available), LTM configuration ID mapping list, Early Sync Information which contains DL/UL early sync info allocated by each accepted candidate cell, Data Forwarding TNLs assigned by other involved gNB-CU(s) and LTM Cells To Be Released List. FFS on other detail information.
Regarding claim 11, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 1, wherein the first network entity serves as a proxy between the second network entity and the third network entity; Huawei see section 2.6… the source gNB-CU collects the TCI state configuration of candidate cells in Handover Request Ack message, it should send the TCI state configuration to other candidate gNB-CUs. In general, there are three options to sync up the TCI state configuration among candidate gNB-CUs. Option 1 is to sync up just after the initial handover preparation. Option 2 is that the source gNB sends the configuration to the target gNB once the LTM is initiated. Option 3 is when receiving the successful access notification from the target gNB. The three options are illustrated in Figure 1; see first eight lines of section 2.6.
Regarding claim 12, Huawei states a method for wireless communications at first network entity, comprising (see section 2.7 source gNB-CU as a first network entity; see first three lines of section 2.7):
communicating, with a third network entity, a first message indicating an identifier associated with a lower-layer triggered mobility (LTM) procedure for a user equipment (UE), the identifier for indicating that the UE is associated with the LTM procedure configured between the first network entity and a second network entity (in context with section 2.6 lines 1- 5 (to support subsequent inter-CU LTM, some LTM configurations, e.g., early sync configuration, configuration ID, and data forwarding addresses, etc may need to sync up among candidate gNBs) pls refer to section 2.7 …During LTM, the LTM Cell Switch Notification from the source gNB-CU to the target gNB-CU can be successfully transmitted for the first time cell switch, because the source gNB-CU and the target gNB-CU already have the NG-RAN node UE XnAP ID of each other. …. One possible solution is that each candidate gNB allocates UE XnAP ID( i.e. an identifier here) and send to other candidate gNBs (i.e. third network entity) in the preparation step (i.e. UE XnAP ID information generated by candidate gNB (i.e. second network entity) and communicate (i.e. first message) to other candidate gNB (i.e. third network entity (i.e. see section 2.3 lines 3- 5.. a new class 2 XnAP procedure, namely LTM Cell Switch Notification should be introduced from the source gNB-CU to the candidate gNB-CU…)).); and
transmitting, to the UE, a second message indicating to perform a cell switch operation from communications with the first network entity to the second network entity or the third network entity in accordance with the LTM procedure (see Fig. 1 #4 “LTM HO CMD”; further see step 5 about handover success with candidate gNB (i.e. second or third network entity here gNB2/3 are candidate gNBs ).
But Huawei is silent about limitations regarding communicate between the first network entity and a third network entity.
However Samsung states on page 3, #9 about .. "The source gNB-CU may send a UE associated XnAP message (FFS whether to reuse existing message, i.e., HANDOVER REQUEST with new code-point or to define a new message, e.g., LTM/HANDOVER MODIFICATION REQUEST) to the candidate gNB(s) containing the information for subsequent LTM, which may contain SSB/CSI resource configuration allocated for all the accepted candidate cells, LTM Reference Configuration(if available), LTM configuration ID mapping list, Early Sync Information..., Data Forwarding TNLs assigned by other involved gNB-CU(s) and LTM Cells To Be Released List." (i.e. here "The source gNB-CU" = first entity — sender; "the candidate gNB(s)" (plural) = third entity — one of possibly several candidate recipients, distinct from whichever candidate is designated "second"; "sends a UE associated XnAP message" = the first message; "LTM configuration ID mapping list" = the identifier associated with the LTM procedure); further see page 6 .proposal 2. "Introduce a Class-1 UE associated XnAP message to transfer LTM configuration information of accepted candidate cells to other each candidate gNB for subsequent LTM with below related LTM information included...". It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Samsung with the teachings of Huawei to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein communicating between the first network entity and a third network entity; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Regarding claim 13, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 12, wherein the identifier comprises a UE identifier allocated by the second network entity; Huawei already discussed above in context with section 2.6 lines 1- 5 (to support subsequent inter-CU LTM, some LTM configurations, e.g., early sync configuration, configuration ID, and data forwarding addresses, etc may need to sync up among candidate gNBs) pls refer to section 2.7 …During LTM, the LTM Cell Switch Notification from the source gNB-CU to the target gNB-CU can be successfully transmitted for the first time cell switch, because the source gNB-CU and the target gNB-CU already have the NG-RAN node UE XnAP ID of each other. …. One possible solution is that each candidate gNB allocates UE XnAP ID( i.e. an identifier here) and send to other candidate gNBs (i.e. third network entity) in the preparation step (i.e. UE XnAP ID information generated by candidate gNB (i.e. second network entity) and communicate (i.e. first message) to other candidate gNB (i.e. third network entity.
Regarding claim 14, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 13, wherein the UE identifier comprises a backhaul application protocol identifier; Huawei see section 2.7 UE XnAP ID.
Regarding claim 15, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 12, wherein the identifier comprises a UE identifier allocated by the first network entity, and wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first network entity to: communicating, to the second network entity and the third network entity, the UE identifier allocated by the first network entity; Huawei already described above in context with section 2.6 lines 1- 5 (to support subsequent inter-CU LTM, some LTM configurations, e.g., early sync configuration, configuration ID, and data forwarding addresses, etc may need to sync up among candidate gNBs) pls refer to section 2.7 …During LTM, the LTM Cell Switch Notification from the source gNB-CU to the target gNB-CU can be successfully transmitted for the first time cell switch, because the source gNB-CU and the target gNB-CU already have the NG-RAN node UE XnAP ID of each other. …. One possible solution is that each candidate gNB allocates UE XnAP ID( i.e. an identifier here) and send to other candidate gNBs (i.e. third network entity) in the preparation step (i.e. UE XnAP ID information generated by candidate gNB (i.e. second network entity) and communicate (i.e. first message) to other candidate gNB (i.e. third network entity)..
Regarding claim 17, Huawei states as per claim 12, but fails to state about, wherein the identifier comprises an LTM session identifier, the LTM session identifier indicating a serving network entity during an LTM preparation procedure of the LTM procedure; however Huawei teaches I section 2 see page 3 9. The source gNB-CU may send a UE associated XnAP message (FFS whether to reuse existing message, i.e., HANDOVER REQUEST with new code-point or to define a new message, e.g., LTM/HANDOVER MODIFICATION REQUEST) to the candidate gNB(s) containing the information for subsequent LTM, which may contain SSB/CSI resource configuration allocated for all the accepted candidate cells, LTM Reference Configuration(if available), LTM configuration ID mapping list, Early Sync Information which contains DL/UL early sync info allocated by each accepted candidate cell, Data Forwarding TNLs assigned by other involved gNB-CU(s) and LTM Cells To Be Released List. FFS on other detail information.
Regarding claim 18, Huawei states as per claim 12, but fails to state about, wherein the identifier comprises an LTM identifier coordinated between the first network entity as a serving network entity during an LTM preparation procedure of the LTM procedure and the second network entity, the third network entity, or any combination thereof, as target network entities; however Huawei teaches I section 2 see page 3 9. The source gNB-CU may send a UE associated XnAP message (FFS whether to reuse existing message, i.e., HANDOVER REQUEST with new code-point or to define a new message, e.g., LTM/HANDOVER MODIFICATION REQUEST) to the candidate gNB(s) containing the information for subsequent LTM, which may contain SSB/CSI resource configuration allocated for all the accepted candidate cells, LTM Reference Configuration(if available), LTM configuration ID mapping list, Early Sync Information which contains DL/UL early sync info allocated by each accepted candidate cell, Data Forwarding TNLs assigned by other involved gNB-CU(s) and LTM Cells To Be Released List. FFS on other detail information.
Regarding claim 19, Huawei states a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to (see section 2.7 source gNB-CU as a first network entity; see first three lines of section 2.7):
communicate, with a third network entity, a first message indicating an identifier associated with a lower-layer triggered mobility (LTM) procedure for a user equipment (UE), the identifier for indicating that the UE is associated with the LTM procedure configured between the first network entity and a second network entity (in context with section 2.6 lines 1- 5 (to support subsequent inter-CU LTM, some LTM configurations, e.g., early sync configuration, configuration ID, and data forwarding addresses, etc may need to sync up among candidate gNBs) pls refer to section 2.7 …During LTM, the LTM Cell Switch Notification from the source gNB-CU to the target gNB-CU can be successfully transmitted for the first time cell switch, because the source gNB-CU and the target gNB-CU already have the NG-RAN node UE XnAP ID of each other. …. One possible solution is that each candidate gNB allocates UE XnAP ID( i.e. an identifier here) and send to other candidate gNBs (i.e. third network entity) in the preparation step (i.e. UE XnAP ID information generated by candidate gNB (i.e. second network entity) and communicate (i.e. first message) to other candidate gNB (i.e. third network entity (i.e. see section 2.3 lines 3- 5.. a new class 2 XnAP procedure, namely LTM Cell Switch Notification should be introduced from the source gNB-CU to the candidate gNB-CU…)).); and
transmit, to the UE, a second message indicating to perform a cell switch operation from communications with the first network entity to the second network entity or the third network entity in accordance with the LTM procedure (see Fig. 1 #4 “LTM HO CMD”; further see step 5 about handover success with candidate gNB (i.e. second or third network entity here gNB2/3 are candidate gNBs ).
But Huawei is silent about limitations regarding communicate between the first network entity and a third network entity.
However Samsung states on page 3, #9 about .. "The source gNB-CU may send a UE associated XnAP message (FFS whether to reuse existing message, i.e., HANDOVER REQUEST with new code-point or to define a new message, e.g., LTM/HANDOVER MODIFICATION REQUEST) to the candidate gNB(s) containing the information for subsequent LTM, which may contain SSB/CSI resource configuration allocated for all the accepted candidate cells, LTM Reference Configuration(if available), LTM configuration ID mapping list, Early Sync Information..., Data Forwarding TNLs assigned by other involved gNB-CU(s) and LTM Cells To Be Released List." (i.e. here "The source gNB-CU" = first entity — sender; "the candidate gNB(s)" (plural) = third entity — one of possibly several candidate recipients, distinct from whichever candidate is designated "second"; "sends a UE associated XnAP message" = the first message; "LTM configuration ID mapping list" = the identifier associated with the LTM procedure); further see page 6 .proposal 2. "Introduce a Class-1 UE associated XnAP message to transfer LTM configuration information of accepted candidate cells to other each candidate gNB for subsequent LTM with below related LTM information included...". It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Samsung with the teachings of Huawei to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein communicating between the first network entity and a third network entity; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Regarding claim 20, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 19, wherein the first network entity serves as a proxy between the second network entity and the third network entity; Huawei see section 2.6… the source gNB-CU collects the TCI state configuration of candidate cells in Handover Request Ack message, it should send the TCI state configuration to other candidate gNB-CUs. In general, there are three options to sync up the TCI state configuration among candidate gNB-CUs. Option 1 is to sync up just after the initial handover preparation. Option 2 is that the source gNB sends the configuration to the target gNB once the LTM is initiated. Option 3 is when receiving the successful access notification from the target gNB. The three options are illustrated in Figure 1; see first eight lines of section 2.6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243206 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 001) in view of Samsung et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243668 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 003) and further in view of Abraham (US Pub. No. 2025/0261077 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 4, but Huawei fails to state about wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first network entity to: transmit, to the second network entity, a third message indicating that the third network entity will communicate with the second network entity; however Abraham teaches in Fig. 8 and steps S17 to S23 bout [0126] At step S19, the source gNB DU (803) sends a DU-CU cell switch notification message (third message) to the gNB CU (807) (i.e. second network entity). The DU-CU cell switch notification message includes a target cell ID and TCI state ID. [0127] At step S20, the gNB CU (807) sends a CU-DU cell switch notification message to the candidate gNB DU (805). The CU-DU cell switch notification message includes the target cell ID and TCI state ID….now refer to steps s21, s22. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Abraham with the teachings of Huawei in view of Samsung to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first network entity to: transmit, to the second network entity, a third message indicating that the third network entity will communicate with the second network entity; greater way standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 16, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 15, but Huawei fails to state about transmitting, to the second network entity, a third message indicating that the third network entity will communicate with the second network entity; however Abraham teaches in Fig. 8 and steps S17 to S23 bout [0126] At step S19, the source gNB DU (803) sends a DU-CU cell switch notification message (third message) to the gNB CU (807) (i.e. second network entity). The DU-CU cell switch notification message includes a target cell ID and TCI state ID. [0127] At step S20, the gNB CU (807) sends a CU-DU cell switch notification message to the candidate gNB DU (805). The CU-DU cell switch notification message includes the target cell ID and TCI state ID…. now refer to steps s21, s22. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Abraham with the teachings of Huawei in view of Samsung to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein transmitting, to the second network entity, a third message indicating that the third network entity will communicate with the second network entity; greater way standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243206 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 001) in view of Samsung et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243668 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 003) and further in view of Hong (US Pub. No. 2025/0392972 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 1, but Huawei fails to state about, wherein the identifier comprises an indication of an access and mobility management function associated with the UE; however Hong states regarding XnAP message which cause the source donor base station/IAB-gNB-CU to transmit the user equipment context for the user equipment served by the corresponding mobile relay to the target donor base station/IAB-gNB-CU, in which the user equipment context has been possessed by the source donor base station/IAB-gNB-CU. As another example, the donor base station/IAB-gNB-CU may request and extract the information from the source donor base station/IAB-gNB-CU; see [0240]; now refer to [0241].. corresponding XnAP message, for example, a handover request message, may include information of at least one of: a source base station user equipment XnAP identifier (source NG-RAN node UE XnAP ID reference), a target cell global identifier (CGI), a globally unique AMF identifier (GUAMI), user equipment history information, global NG-RAN node ID included in the user equipment context reference, S-NG-RAN node user equipment XnAP ID and AMF UE NGAP ID included in the user equipment context information (NG-C user equipment associated signaling reference), an AMF IP address of the SCTP association (signaling TNL association address at source NG-C side)…It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Hong with the teachings of Huawei in view of Samsung to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the identifier comprises an indication of an access and mobility management function associated with the UE; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243206 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 001) in view of Samsung et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243668 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 003) and further in view of Shimoda et al. (EP 4027683 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Huawei in view of Samsung states as per claim 1, but Huawei fails to state about wherein the identifier comprises a temporary mobile subscriber identity (TMSI) provided by the UE to the first network entity; however Shimoda states in Fig. 19 regarding… In Step ST1730 illustrated in FIG. 19, gNB #1 requests AMF #1 to change the identifier of the UE.For the request, for example, signaling in the N2 interface may be used.New signaling, for example, signaling of N2 UE configuration update request (N2 UE configuration update request), may be provided for use. In Step ST1732, AMF #1 changes the identifier of the UE. The identifier may be, for example, a 5G-S-TMSI; In Step ST1734 illustrated in FIG. 19, AMF #1 commands the UE to update the identifier of the UE. For the command, NAS signaling, for example, configuration update command (CONFIGURATION UPDATE COMMAND) disclosed in Non-Patent Document 27 (TS 24.501), may be used. The command may include, for example, the updated 5G-S-TMSI of the UE. In Step ST1736, the UE updates the UE-ID of the UE by using the command; see [0193- 0195]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Shimoda with the teachings of Huawei in view of Samsung to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the identifier comprises a temporary mobile subscriber identity (TMSI) provided by the UE to the first network entity; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243206 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 001) in view of Samsung et al., “discussion on inter-CU LTM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 meeting #124, R3-243668 (see IDS filed in 10/10/2025, page 2 Cite No 003) and further in view of Shimoda et al. (EP 4027683 A1) and further in view of Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2026/0046878 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Huawei in view of Samsung and Shimoda states as per claim 1, but Huawei fails to state about wherein the identifier comprises a temporary mobile subscriber identity (TMSI) provided by an access and mobility management function associated with the UE to the first network entity during an LTM preparation procedure; however Shimoda states in [0113] regarding .. Absolute TA MAC CE: If CFRA (contention-free random access, contention-free random access) is triggered by a handover, an absolute TA value (Timing Advance, timing advance) needs to be delivered through the MSGB to keep uplink synchronization between the UE and the base station; now refer to [0114]…. the identifier of the terminal device 110 may reuse a UE identifier (an example of the identifier of the terminal device 110) in an RRCSetupRequest or an RRCResumeRequest. The RRCSetupRequest is used by the terminal device 110 in an RRC idle state (idle state) to establish an RRC connection, and a 30-bit ng-5G-S-TMSI-Part1 (a higher layer configures a 5G-S-TMSI) or a 39-bit random value (a higher layer does not configure a 5G-S-TMSI) is used as an identity of the terminal device 110, where the 5G-S-TMSI includes an AMF (access and mobility management function, access and mobility management function) Set ID, an AMF pointer, and a 5G-TMSI…. It should be noted that, in a 6G system, a TMSI (temporary mobile subscriber identity, temporary mobile subscriber identity) configured by a core network may have another name. Herein, only an identifier defined in 5G is used as an example. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Wei with the teachings of Huawei in view of Samsung and Shimoda to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the identifier comprises a temporary mobile subscriber identity (TMSI) provided by an access and mobility management function associated with the UE to the first network entity during an LTM preparation procedure; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 form for considered prior arts for record.
Reference Kim et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0301380 A1) teaches about a first base station sends, to a second base station, a handover request message, for a wireless device, comprising an identifier of a candidate cell for a layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) and a request for LTM information. The request for the LTM information comprises an identifier of an LTM candidate configuration of the candidate cell for the LTM. The first base station sends, to the second base station, a message indicating a cancelling of the LTM; see abstract.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. 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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights